child-friendly schooling for peacebuilding

Child-Friendly Schooling for Peacebuilding

Child-Friendly Schooling for Peacebuilding© United Nations Children’s Fund, Education Section, Programme Division, New York, 2014 United Nations Children’s Fund Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017

September 2014

This report was authored by Fumiyo Kagawa and David Selby, respectively, Research Director and Founding Director of Sustainability Frontiers, a non-governmental organization with offices in Canada and the United Kingdom. It is part of the knowledge generation component of the Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy in Conflict-Affected Contexts (PBEA) programme - a partnership between UNICEF and the Government of the Netherlands.

The content of this report does not necessarily reflect UNICEF’s official position. Also, the text has not been edited to official publication standards, hence UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors.

The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

Cover photos: © UNICEF/BANA2013-01251/Kiron (left); © UNICEF/RWAA2011-00151/Noorani (middle); © UNICEF/NYHQ2009-0234/Estey (right)

A note about the authorsFumiyo Kagawa and David Selby are, respectively, Research Director and Founding Director of Sustainability Frontiers, a non-governmental organization with offices in Canada and the United Kingdom. They work in the areas of peacebuilding education, climate change education, disaster risk reduction education and education for sustainability, and have served as consultants for UNESCO, UNICEF, Plan International and Save the Children. To visit the Sustainability Frontiers website, go to: www.sustainabilityfrontiers.org.

AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable, insightful and generous support given to our endeavours by Friedrich Affolter, Peacebuilding Programme Manager, UNICEF, New York. We thank, too, the many UNICEF officers based in New York and in regional and country offices who have provided helpful support and feedback on successive drafts of our work. In particular, thanks to Changu Mannathoko, Brenda Haiplik, Maida Pasic, and Pi James.

Executive summary I

Section 1: Introduction 11.1 Purposes and scope of the study 11.2 Overview 1

Section 2: Child-friendly education 22.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child 22.2 Key characteristics, principles and features of the child-friendly school 22.3 New focuses and emphases in child-friendly education 42.4 Implementation aspects of child-friendly education 5

Section 3: Peacebuilding and education 63.1 Core concepts and definitions 63.2 Conflict-sensitive education and education for peacebuilding 8 3.2.1 Conflict-sensitive education 8 3.2.2 Education for peacebuilding 93.3 New focuses and emphases in conflict-sensitive education and education for peacebuilding 113.4 Implementation aspects of conflict-sensitive education and education for peacebuilding 13

Section 4: The child-friendly school through a peacebuilding lens 164.1 Introduction 164.2 School environment and ethos 21 4.2.1 Physical environment 21 4.2.2 School culture 23 4.2.2.1 Non-violent school culture 24 4.2.2.2 Inclusive school culture 284.3 Curriculum, teaching and learning 32 4.3.1 Curriculum content 32

Contents

4.3.2 Plural and parallel citizenship education 36 4.3.3 Negotiated curriculum 38 4.3.4 Child-centred learning 39 4.3.4.1 Cooperative learning 40 4.3.4.2 Socio-emotional learning 42 4.3.4.3 Critical media literacy learning 46 4.3.4.4 Future-oriented learning 494.4 School as community – school in community 51 4.4.1 Student participation at school 51 4.4.2 Student participation in and with the community 56 4.4.3 School as community hub 644.5 School as a learning organization 65 4.5.1 School self-assessment and school improvement planning 65 4.5.2 Monitoring and evaluation 66

Section 5: System-wide child-friendly education through a peacebuilding lens 685.1 Professional development 685.2 Situation analysis (SitAn) 725.3 Multi-sector, multi-level and partnership approaches 735.4 National policy and framework development 735.5 National team 775.6 Monitoring and evaluation 78

Section 6: Risks and vulnerabilities 82

Section 7: Recommendations for making the child-friendly school more peacebuilding resonant in conflict-affected contexts 84

References 88

Endnotes 94

Appendices 100Appendix 1: Synoptic case studies 100Appendix 2: Standards and indicators for child-friendly schooling for peacebuilding in post-conflict contexts 110

Boxes Box 1. Nepal: Schools as Zones of Peace 22Box 2. Sierra Leone: Fambul Tok 25Box 3. Kenya: Peace Education Programme 27Box 4. Colombia: Escuela Nueva 29Box 5. Liberia: ‘Un-teaching’ violent behaviour 34Box 6. Rwanda: Learning from the Past – Building the Future programme 37Box 7. Afghanistan: Help the Afghan Children’s Peace Education programme 44Box 8. Slovenia: Media education 48Box 9. Colombia: Youth Peace Builders Project 55Box 10. State of Palestine: Ruwwad Community-Based Service-Learning for Youth Empowerment 58Box 11. Democratic Republic of the Congo: Adolescent girls’ and boys’ discussion groups 59Box 12. Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe: Generations for Peace 61Box 13. Nigeria: Peace Club Project 63Box 14. Serbia: School without Violence Programme 74Box 15. Sri Lanka: Education for social cohesion 76Box 16. Uganda: Child-friendly learning and evaluation toolsace 79

Education is the most powerful

weapon which you can use to

change the world.‘‘

– Nelson Mandela’’

I Child-friendly Schooling for Peacebuilding

Executive Summary

This study critically examines child-friendly school theory and practice from a peacebuilding perspective. It begins by exploring the child rights substructure of child-friendly education before going on to examine the key principles and primary features of the child-friendly school – child-centredness, inclusiveness, democratic participation and protection – and what they mean in terms of child-friendly practice in the classroom, school and community. New focuses in child-friendly education are touched upon, in particular, linkages with concepts of quality education, the spread of child-friendly schooling from the primary school to preschool and the secondary school levels, and the realization that change across the education system as a whole needs to be addressed in order to achieve quality child-friendly education.

Attention then turns to fundamental concepts and key ideas in peacebuilding education. The idea of conflict sensitivity is introduced and key features of conflict-sensitive education elaborated. With its ‘do no harm’ precept, conflict sensitivity is viewed as laying down a minimum or precursory standard for the clear orientation towards post-conflict cultural, social, political and economic transformation that characterizes peacebuilding. Education for peacebuilding mirrors its generic field in endeavouring to restructure learning and learning contexts so as to readjust and rebalance power relationships in post-conflict contexts by addressing the drivers that have caused and/or exacerbated conflict and division. It calls, among other things, for learning that responds to basic emotional needs, that develops life skills, that enables learners to become ‘active bystanders’ and ‘constructive patriots’ with the moral courage to stand and speak out against harmful group opinion. New focuses and emphases for UNICEF are then considered, notably, the bringing together of peacebuilding, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction under the umbrella concept of resilience building.

Using a socioecological model of change derived from ecological systems theory, a theory of change for peacebuilding education is then offered postulating that sustainable social transformation calls for multilayered, interlinked change whereby, for instance, micro-systemic change in the classroom and school is reinforced and embedded through structural and cultural change at the macro-systemic level while being affirmed by action at the intermediate (including community) meso-systemic level. This change theory is frequently returned to as the study unfolds.

The study then turns to looking at characteristic child-friendly school elements through a peacebuilding lens, with the frequent use of case study examples. In so doing it identifies elements that are ‘peacebuilding resonant’, i.e., already making a contribution to peacebuilding; ‘peacebuilding latent’, i.e., have unrealized peacebuilding potential; and constitute ‘peacebuilding gaps’, i.e., areas left undeveloped by, but nonetheless organically connected to, the child-friendly school concept that, if implemented, would also fulfil an important peacebuilding function. The importance placed in child-friendly school thinking on school environment and ethos is first examined and the argument made that child participation in shaping the school environment

IIChild-friendly Schooling for Peacebuilding

and ethos can readily be translated in post-conflict contexts into child engagement to realize peacebuilding goals.

There follows a section on child-friendly curriculum, teaching and learning. The case is made that child-friendly curriculum proposals lack elaboration but that they provide fertile ground within which the more thoroughly developed curriculum proposals of peacebuilding education can be established. Child-friendly life skills education offers, perhaps, the most fertile soil of all. While child-friendly curricula are rich in citizenship education potential, the concepts of citizenship that peacebuilding learning of transformative intent embraces are not evident. Again, while child-friendly education makes the abstract case for child-negotiated curricula, it draws back from serious child involvement in determining where the curriculum in detail focuses and thus misses out on the potential for practising democracy. Child-centred pedagogies, a keystone of the child-friendly school, are found to be limited in their diversity, particular attention being given to both the child-friendly and peacebuilding potential that is being missed by the failure to place sufficient store within child-friendly education on cooperative learning, socio-emotional learning, learning for critical media literacy, and future-oriented learning.

Under the key child-friendly school principle of democratic participation, the potential within child-friendly frameworks for student involvement in school and community in peacebuilding initiatives is explored. Potential forms and areas of child and youth participation are laid out. It is concluded that the representative school governance emphasis of child-friendly education allied to its tendency to otherwise restrict student participation to engagement with tasks designated by adults falls short of realizing a culture of participatory democracy within which peacebuilding initiatives might prosper. Possibilities for student participatory engagement of transformative potential within school and out in the community in conflict-affected contexts are then discussed, including child participation in peace-promoting media production and broadcasting. The text then turns to the idea of the school as the community hub or entry point for peacebuilding and the possibilities this opens up for student and community participation. In a similar way, the child-friendly school’s emphasis on self-assessment and school improvement and on school-level monitoring and evaluation are seen as carrying potential for peacebuilding which students could and should be encouraged to take advantage of.

The study then turns to the potential within system-wide child-friendly education for peacebuilding, with sections on the professional development of teachers and others, the use of situation analyses, multi-sector and multi-level partnership approaches, national policy development, national child-friendly school teams, and national-level monitoring and evaluation. The conflict-sensitivity and peacebuilding risks and vulnerabilities that might follow from child-friendly schooling in and of itself but also from infusing child-friendly practice with additional features and dimensions in the pursuit of conflict resolution and resultant social transformation are then enumerated.

The main text ends with recommendations for making child-friendly schooling more peacebuilding resonant. Appendices offer further case studies of the synoptic variety and a listing of standards and indicators for child- friendly schooling for peacebuilding.

III Child-friendly Schooling for Peacebuilding

© U

NIC

EF/

PAK

A20

14-0

0117

/Zai

di

1Child-friendly Schooling for Peacebuilding

1.1 Purposes and scope of the study

This study is one outcome of a ‘Child-Friendly Schools and Peacebuilding’ consultancy commissioned by UNICEF. There were two principal purposes of the consultancy: First, it was established to assist the Programme Management Team of the UNICEF Peacebuilding Education and Advocacy (PBEA) in Conflict-Affected Contexts programme1 in assessing whether and in what ways the UNICEF child-friendly schools (CFS) programme might “contribute – in practice as well as in theory – to the development of the values of democratic participation in children and youth; as well to their harmonious relationships at the intrapsychic, interpersonal and intergroup level”. Second, its aim was to identify and review noteworthy low-cost practices in education for peacebuilding developed within but also independent of the CFS framework and to share that practice with UNICEF country offices that have included child-friendly school activities for peacebuilding in their work plans. Practice, so understood, covers initiatives empowering children and youth to contribute to violence-free schools and communities, initiatives leading to a reduction in physical and psychological violence, and initiatives enabling children and youth to participate in and contribute to more open and democratic school governance. The consultants were additionally tasked with suggesting user-friendly indicators and tools through which country offices could evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of peacebuilding education interventions.

The document has been developed following the collection, reading and analysis of academic and theoretical literature, guidance tools (handbooks, manuals, checklists), published case study material, and evaluation documentation in the public domain as well as relevant UNICEF internal documentation. Longer case studies elaborating noteworthy practice appear in boxes while attention is drawn to other examples of noteworthy practice within the running text. Appendix 1 offers a number of additional, synoptic case studies.

1.2 Overview

This document reviews the fields of child-friendly education (CFE) in section 2 and peacebuilding education in section 3. A review of school-level applications of the CFS approach through a peacebuilding lens is offered in section 4. It identifies elements in CFS theory and practice that are ‘peacebuilding resonant’ (already making a contribution to peacebuilding) and ‘peacebuilding latent’ (having unrealized peacebuilding potential). It also identifies gaps in CFS thinking and provision that from a peacebuilding perspective need to be filled and, if filled, would enrich the workings of the child-friendly school. The same lens is then focused on system-wide (national, sub-national and local) applications and manifestations of the CFE model in section 5. Limitations and risks involved in applying peacebuilding to child-friendly schooling are examined in section 6. The main study ends by listing recommendations in section 7. Appendix 2 enumerates standards and indicators for child-friendly schooling for peacebuilding.

Introduction

Section 1

2 Child-friendly Schooling for Peacebuilding

2.1 The Convention on the Rights of the Child

The purposes, scope and potential of the notions of ‘child-friendly school’ and ‘child-friendly education’ are informed by the rights laid out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The CRC affirms that the rights it identifies apply to all children2 irrespective of difference and without discrimination. It underscores the primacy of ‘the best interests of the child’ whenever decisions are made or actions taken affecting children. It enumerates the rights of the child under four principal headings: survival and development rights (the child’s basic right to life, survival and development of their full potential); protection rights (the child’s right to be kept free from harm); and participation rights (all children’s right to participate, express themselves in ways of choice, be listened to and actively engage with diverse knowledge sources).

It also lays down that the child, as rights holder, is entitled to an education that develops his or her personality, talents and abilities to their fullest potential, encouraging respect for human rights, their own and other cultures and the natural environment, as well as fostering characteristics making for peaceful engagement with others, however they differ from themselves (UN 1989).

A child-friendly school is essentially a child rights-based school while the larger notion of child-friendly education enshrines the idea of an education system imbued in all aspects with child rights-based principles (Shaeffer 2013).

2.2 Key characteristics, principles and features of the child-friendly school

Child-friendly schooling does not offer a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model but presents a “multidimensional concept of educational quality in a comprehensive, integrated way, allowing for proactive approaches to emerging concerns” (UNICEF ESARO 2009, xi). It is enabling of diverse regional and national expression.

The terminology of child-friendly education is thus marked by diverse usage. It has been described as having two primary (‘major’ or ‘basic’) characteristics and three (sometimes four) ‘key’ or ‘essential’ principles – which, in turn, inform a diverse range of key features variously referred to as ‘elements’, ‘dimensions’ or ‘defining characteristics’, i.e., operational components manifest in the actual functioning of schools and education systems (Shaeffer 2013; UNICEF undated a; UNICEF 2009a; UNICEF 2012f; UNICEF EAPRO 2006; UNICEF ESARO 2009).

Child-friendly education

Section 2


The first primary characteristic, derived from the notion of the best interests of the child as set out in the CRC, is ‘child-centredness’. This characteristic embraces the notion of education addressing the ‘whole child’ and thus seeking to foster the psychosocial well-being and full cognitive, socio-affective and physical potentials of the child (Shaeffer 2013; UNICEF 2012f). The second revolves around the notion of the ‘child-seeking’ school. The child-friendly school actively seeks out and enrols children who are not in school and, through careful and sensitive attention to the needs and well-being of the individual child, seeks to retain them on the school roster. This inclusionary characteristic also recognizes the importance of deep engagement with the surrounding community as a key to ensuring enrolment and retention (Shaeffer 2013; UNICEF 2012f).

The concept of child centredness, described in more concrete ways, also figures among the commonly identified key principles of child-friendly education. As a principle, child centredness has implications for the learning process, the child no longer being conceived of as a passive recipient of knowledge but as actively engaged through interaction, observation, exploration and enquiry alongside other children in constructing understanding and making sense of the world around her or him. Critical in the implementation of a child-centred pedagogy is the presence of a child-affirming, inclusive and protective classroom and whole-school learning environment. That environment, according to child-friendly philosophy, should be responsive to and respectful of diversity, healthy, hygienic, safe, non-violent, promoting of gender equality and marked by significant engagement with families and communities (UNICEF undated b; UNICEF 2009a).

‘Inclusiveness’ is a second often-cited key principle of child-friendly education. Under this heading, child-friendly education embraces the CRC’s inclusionary stance (article 2) and its call for education directed to peace, tolerance, equality and friendship (article 29). A child-friendly school is one that avoids excluding, discriminating or stereotyping on the basis of difference, respects and celebrates diversity, and provides free, compulsory education. It is welcoming of all children and mindful of their individual needs and circumstances (UNICEF 2012f).

‘Democratic participation’ is the third commonly asserted principle. It draws inspiration from those articles in the CRC delineating the participatory rights of the child, in particular: article 12, the right of every child to express views freely on matters affecting him or her and to have those opinions taken into account; article 13, the right of the child to freedom of expression and to impart information through media of her or his own choice; and article 15, the right of the child to freedom of association and assembly. Such participatory rights are seen as translating within school and school-in-community practice into, among other things, an openness to children having a say in negotiation of curriculum content and choice of learning approaches and processes (UNICEF 2009a), forms of participatory, transactional (as against transmissive) learning, children having a say in school governance and decision-making processes, learner engagement in community opinion forming and decision making (Spadacini 2013).

‘Protection’ is identified in some accounts of child-friendly education as a fourth principle, focusing on the central importance of the school as a “physically and socio-emotionally healthy place” (Shaeffer 2013, 18). In concrete terms, the principle speaks to healthy, hygienic and safe learning environments, psychosocial support, life skills learning, and defence of children from abuse and harm, including on their way to and from school.

Although the elements, dimensions or defining characteristics of the child-friendly school flowing from the primary characteristics and key principles are marked by varying degrees of difference and emphasis across global, regional and national documents, the following items represent recurring elements (drawn from Shaeffer 2013; UNICEF undated b, 2009a):


• Cooperating with partners to promote and monitor the rights and well-being of the child.

• Seeking to understand the development progression and needs of the whole child in the broader context of home, school and community.

• Fostering child participation, creativity, confidence and self-esteem as well as psychosocial well-being.

• Providing a child-relevant curriculum and child-centred pedagogy so that learning accords with the child’s reality and learning needs.

• Encompassing inclusivity and responsiveness to the culture, circumstances and needs of children.

• Being gender sensitive and equitable, ensuring parity of enrolment and opportunities for girls.

• Providing for the health, safety and protection of children.

• Establishing harmonious and collaborative pro-child partnerships with children’s families.

• Creating strong links between the school and its community, encouraging parental and community engagement with and in the school.

• Exhibiting concern for teacher capacity building for effective facilitation and leadership in the child-friendly classroom and school.

2.3 New focuses and emphases in child-friendly education

CFE theory can be described as ‘curriculum lite’ in that beyond broad reference to curricular themes such as citizenship, human rights, peace and multiculturalism, there has been (for reasons to be discussed in subsection 2.4) a marked avoidance of filling in the details of what constitutes a child-friendly curriculum.

More recently, that picture has begun to change in the light of new United Nations priorities. For instance, a companion volume to the ‘Child Friendly Schools Manual’ (UNICEF 2009a) – ‘Climate Change and Environmental Education’ (UNICEF 2012b) – has been issued offering a module and guidance on the inclusion of environmental and climate change themes in school curricula. Emphasizing the impacts of climate change on children, the module and guidance incorporate climate change and environmental education within a CFS framework with sections on, among other things, child-centred pedagogy, child participation and schools as protective environments. What is noteworthy is the significantly more detailed curricular elaboration offered by the module and guidance.

Similarly, with the emphasis on disaster risk reduction education in the latter part of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014), UNICEF has made available a resource manual on climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in education set within a CFE framework (UNICEF 2012a). This, again, includes a more robust curricular element set within a schema designed to offer ‘equitable quality education’.

The reference to ‘quality education’ signals a further shift in emphasis towards conceiving child-friendly education as about ‘quality learners’ (healthy, well-nourished, ready to learn and supported by their family and community), receiving ‘quality content’ (relevant curricula and adequate materials for literacy, numeracy, and the essential knowledge and skills for life) addressed through ‘quality learning processes’ (child-centred and life skills based) within ‘quality learning environments’ (non-violent, healthy and safe) in pursuit of ‘quality outcomes’, with identified learning outcomes


and appropriate assessment (UNICEF undated b). Currently used terms such as ‘equitable quality education’, ‘quality education’ and ‘child-friendly education’ are increasingly employed synonymously and interchangeably (UNICEF 2012b). The child-friendly school has been identified as “a unifying and child rights-focused framework for addressing critical aspects of education quality and child protection” in emergency and post-crisis transition contexts (UNICEF 2010c, 90).

The embrace of quality education has been paralleled by the extension of what was initially a programme focused on formal primary education to other levels and kinds of education, including early childhood, secondary and non-formal education (Shaeffer 2013). The CFS manual highlights the importance of extending the child-friendly approach to the preschool years to better prepare children for the child-friendly primary school and to better facilitate home-school linkages and the transition from the home to school environment (UNICEF 2009a). Some countries, including China and Thailand, have begun applying the CFS framework to the secondary level.

A key argument behind the call for child-friendly secondary education is that it will smooth the uncomfortable transition involved in children moving from a child-friendly primary experience to a “formal, rigid, hierarchical, teacher-centred, and often harsher environment” with “teachers facing students who are more independent, creative, outspoken and demanding” (Shaeffer 2013, 61). Other arguments revolve around the desirability of applying a child-friendly philosophy to teenagers, who can face serious post-puberty and inclusivity issues, and around the possibility that teenagers are best positioned of all school children to take advantage of the participatory opportunities that child-friendly education opens up: “A tremendous opportunity at the secondary level are the students themselves who can provide increasingly more participatory and self-directed contributions to planning, implementing and monitoring Child Friendliness” (UNICEF EAPRO and UNESCO Bangkok 2004).

The spread of child-friendly education across age levels led to the “realization that the education system as a whole, and the major actors in the system, had to be reoriented towards child-friendliness” (Shaeffer 2013, 15). Child-friendly education is now held to call for a systemic application that brings together national planning and policy development, sub-national providers and multipliers (including teacher education programmes), and the child-immediate sphere of school and community (UNICEF 2009a).

2.4 Implementation aspects of child-friendly education

Proponents of child-friendly education have emphasized the benefits of leaving open the actualization of key principles and defining features. This strategic decision arises from the implementation philosophy adopted. That philosophy has been one of offering a flexible smorgasbord of principles and features offering ‘pathways’ rather than ‘blueprints’ (UNICEF 2009a). With a particular accent on the key principles, schools and jurisdictions are encouraged to determine, according to their context and circumstances, what initial concrete steps to take in becoming a child-friendly school rather than adopting an ‘all at once’ approach taking on the implications of the principles in their entirety. There has been a confidence that the principles are so inextricably overlapping and interwoven that, once on the road to child-friendliness, a school (or larger system) would find itself inexorably drawn into applying the full spectrum of principles across every aspect of its operation (UNICEF 2009a).

The approach, then, is a non-prescriptive ‘start where the shoe fits (or hurts)’ approach relying on a ‘ripple effect’ or ‘chain reaction’ to lead the jurisdiction or school towards holistic implementation of child-friendly education.


Section 3

Peacebuilding and education

3.1 Coreconceptsanddefinitions

The early theoretical development of peacebuilding has been profoundly influenced by Johan Galtung’s (1969) extended concepts of violence and peace (seefigure1). ‘Personal and direct violence’ involves physical and psychological violence that harms individuals. A situation in which such violence is absent is regarded as a state of ‘negative peace.’ On the other hand, social, political and economic systems and structures that oppress and cause suffering hand out what Galtung describes as ‘indirect and structural violence’ or social injustice. An absence of structural violence is referred to as a state of ‘positive peace’ or social justice. Galtung also coins the term ‘cultural violence’, by which he means aspects of culture such as religion, ideology and language “that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence”. ‘Cultural peace’ he sees as

referring to aspects of culture that serve to justify and legitimize states of both negative and positive peace (Galtung 1996).

Salmi (2000) conceives of four types of violence: ‘direct’ – all types of coercive or brutal actions involving physical or psychological suffering; ‘indirect’ –conditions violating the right to survival, such as poverty, hunger and disease; ‘repressive’ – deprivation of fundamental civil, political and social rights; and ‘alienating’ – deprivation of the right to psychological, emotional, cultural and intellectual integrity.

Coining the term ‘peacebuilding’, Galtung (1976) emphasizes the importance of creating structures for positive and sustainable peace by addressing the root causes of violent conflict, including structural violence, and developing local capacities for peace management and conflict resolution. Within United Nations systems, peacebuilding has become a familiar concept since the Secretary-General’s report ‘An Agenda for Peace’ (1992) defined post-conflict peacebuilding as “action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict” (para. 21). In 2007, the Secretary-General’s Policy Committee laid out a conceptual underpinning for United Nations peacebuilding practice, as follows:

Figure 1. Extended concepts of violence and peace (taken from Galtung 1969, 183)

Violence

Peace

Personal(direct)

absence of personal violence

or

Negativepeace

Structural(indirect)

absence of structural violence

or

Postivepeace

(also referred to as *social injustice*)

(also referred to as *social injustice*)


Peacebuilding involves a range of measures targeted to reduce the risk of lapsing and relapsing into conflict by strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict management, and to lay the foundations for sustainable peace and development. Peacebuilding strategies must be coherent and tailored to the specific needs of the country concerned, based on national ownership, and should comprise a carefully prioritized, sequenced, and therefore relatively narrow set of activities aimed at achieving the above objectives (UN Peacebuilding Support Office 2010, 5).

The 2009 Secretary-General’s report, ‘Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict’ further developed understanding of peacebuilding by placing specific emphasis on the critical early window of the first two years following conflict cessation. It emphasizes peacebuilding as a multidimensional range of interventions and as a system-wide undertaking. The report highlights five interrelated and recurrent peacebuilding areas needing attention and support: basic safety and security, political processes, basic services, core government functions and economic revitalization (UN 2009).

Tapping into the unrealized potential for full and equal participation by women in peacebuilding processes while ending sexual and gender-based violence has become an urgent priority for the United Nations. The 2010 Secretary-General’s report ‘Women’s Participation in Peacebuilding’ sees women as “critical partners” for the “three pillars of lasting peace: economic recovery, social cohesion and political legitimacy” (UN 2010, 3). The report puts forward an action plan for gender-responsive peacebuilding consisting of commitments to ensuring, among other things, women’s full engagement in all peace talks, post-conflict planning processes and post-conflict governance, allocation of adequate funding to address women’s needs, gender equality, promotion of women’s empowerment, and women’s participation in the process of seeking redress for injustice committed against them. In October 2013, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution reaffirming the importance of women’s participation in all phases of conflict prevention, resolution, recovery and peacebuilding (UN 2013b).

Attention to cross-cutting issues such as gender equality in post-conflict situations “can multiply peacebuilding outcomes” (UN Peacebuilding Support Office 2012, 6). Integrating gender perspectives in the design and delivery of social services by addressing the distinct needs and capacities of women, men, girls and boys reaps increased peace dividends. One gender mainstreaming strategy is to employ female service providers both at top management and front-line service levels. In addition to increasing accessibility and usage of the services by female beneficiaries, women’s visibility in public sector positions can motive the participation of other women in the public sphere, which, in turn, contributes to reducing gender stereotypes.

Empowering women and girls (especially adolescent girls) economically, politically and socially to fulfil their full potential is another important strategy: “Leaders and practitioners must not lose sight of the fact that achieving gender equality is not only an efficient means to a peacebuilding end, but ultimately an important and imperative end in itself” (UN Peacebuilding Support Office 2012, 97). Sensitizing men and boys to gender equality is also an important step. Such work needs to be implemented “within a broader gender equality framework that analyzes the distinct needs and capacities of females and males of all ages, and that mobilizes not just women and girls, but also men and boys around a common goal of a more just and equitable post-conflict society” (98).

UNICEF, with its dual humanitarian and development mandate within fragile, conflict and post-conflict contexts, describes its systematic approach as involving “a multi-dimensional range of measures to reduce the risk of a lapse and relapse into conflict by addressing both the causes and consequences of conflict, and strengthening national capacities at all levels for conflict


management in order to lay foundations for sustainable peace and development” (UNICEF 2012c, 11). Its peacebuilding work has been taken forward in different forms across different sectors and development programme areas, including early childhood development; education; water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH); child protection; health and nutrition; and adolescents and youth (see UNICEF 2012c, pages 22–32, on how each of these sectors contributes to peacebuilding).

‘Conflict sensitivity’ and ‘peacebuilding’ are terms that are often used interchangeably by stakeholders, but they are actually distinctive concepts with significantly different if nonetheless overlapping practical ramifications. Conflict sensitively refers to the “capacity of an organisation to understand its operating context, understand the interaction between its interventions and the context, and act upon this understanding to avoid negative impacts (‘do no harm’) and maximise positive impacts on conflict factors” (UNICEF 2012c, 3). UNICEF sees conflict sensitivity as “the ‘minimum standard’ for development and humanitarian interventions in all conflict affected contexts,” while peacebuilding “represents a more explicit effort to address root causes of conflict and violence,” involving transformations of relationships (5).

3.2 Conflict-sensitiveeducationandeducationforpeacebuilding

3.2.1 Conflict-sensitive education

In post-conflict and transition situations, there are two streams of discourse in peace-oriented education: conflict-sensitive education and education for peacebuilding. Recognizing that conflict-sensitive education is seen as the minimum standard for peacebuilding education, some key features of and strategies for conflict-sensitive education are highlighted in the list below (INEE 2013; Bush and Saltarelli 2000; Global Education Cluster 2012b; Sigsgaard 2012; UNICEF 2011c):

• ‘Do no harm’: There is critical realization that educational interventions in conflict-affected contexts have not always been constructive and positive and have sometimes had destructive and negative effects. Minimizing negative impacts (e.g., making sure that education does not reinforce inequalities and exacerbate divisions and tensions) and maximizing positive impacts (e.g., promoting tolerance in society, bolstering inclusive citizenship and reducing bias and segregation) are critical in all aspects of educational programming and implementation.

Conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding: A comparison (INEE 2013; UNICEF 2012c)

Conflict sensitivity Peacebuilding

The ability to:

- Understand the context in which the organization is operating, particularly inter-group relations

- Understand the interactions between interventions and context-group relations

- Act upon the understanding of these interactions in order to minimize negative impacts

Measures designed to:

- Promote peaceful relations

- Strengthen viable political, socio-economic and cultural institutions capable of handling conflicts

- Strengthen other mechanisms that will create or support the necessary conditions for sustained peace

- Transform relationships

Application:

- To all humanitarian and development programmes of all types, in all sectors, at all stages of violence and conflict

Application:

- To development programmes of all types, in all sectors, at all stages of violence and conflict


• Conflictanalysis: Systematic study of the background and history, causes, actors and dynamics of conflict and of education’s role in conflict is an important entry point for policy and programme development. Conflict analysis also provides the opportunity to engage with multiple stakeholders and help develop shared contextual understanding to inform educational activities.

• Community participation: Equitable and transparent community participation in all stages of education reform (assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation) is critical so as to avoid perpetuating existing inequalities and inter-group grievances while building trust. Children and youth should be included in meaningful ways. It is important to build upon existing community capacities and mobilize community resources.

• Equal access to quality education: Conflict-affected situations present an opportunity to remove historic barriers to access within and outside of education systems. Any gaps in access identified by conflict analysis should be addressed. Support for the most vulnerable and marginalized children needs to be prioritized.

• Non-biased curriculum content and materials: Curriculum content, including illustrations, should be free from bias, stereotypes and prejudice towards any group.

• Gender sensitivity: Women’s and girls’ perspectives should be included along with those of men and boys in all aspects of education so as to address and redress gender disparities and gender-related violence and violations. Girls and women are not only victims of conflict but critical agents in and for change.

• Protection: Protection of teachers, students and learning environments from attack and harm should be prioritized. Psychosocial protection for children should be provided.

3.2.2 Education for peacebuilding

Education for peacebuilding is transformative in focus and aims at cultural, social, political and economic transformation at all levels within conflict-affected societies by addressing the drivers of conflict. It is “more explicitly political” than conflict-sensitive education and “attempts to change existing power relationships within a society” (UNICEF 2011d, 43). Following Galtung education for peacebuilding is ‘positive peace education’.

UNICEF’s approach to education for peacebuilding is underpinned by a number of core principles, including analysis-based programme design, capacity development and institutionalization, equity, participation, a culture of peace, partnership, gender sensitivity and sustainability. It calls for moving beyond a ‘minimalist’ or ‘negative’ approach to peace, with the intention of capitalizing on “education’s transformative capacity to positively shape values, attitudes, behavior, knowledge and skills” (UNICEF 2011d, 17–18).

In building positive peace, an optimal education for peacebuilding encompasses such characteristics as child protection, psychosocial support, reintegration of the excluded and marginalized, economic recovery, self-reliance and sociopolitical reform. In addition to the formal education system, community-based education for reconciliation, bringing together divided groups, is considered vital (Salm and Shubert 2012).3 Education for peacebuilding also needs to be linked to wider sectoral reform of education while paying attention to the timing and sequencing of interventions, so that shorter-term humanitarian and longer-term development phases dovetail (UNICEF 2011d).

The transformative orientation of peacebuilding education calls for socio-emotional nurturance of children and a fostering of qualities and traits that bring positive energy to processes of renewal,


reconciliation and reconstruction. A pro-social citizen more likely manifests responsible, responsive and proactive citizenship competencies if she or he:

• Grows up in a socio-emotionally enabling context in which basic human needs are constructively satisfied, including security, effectiveness and control, positive sense of identity, positive sense of belonging, independence and autonomy (Staub 2003) (seefigure2).

• Acquires well-developed life skills in conjunction with a range of pro-social dispositions, i.e. positive attitudes towards themselves, others (regardless of difference) and the sum-total collective of humanity.

• Is acculturated in formal, informal and non-formal learning environments where children are encouraged and rewarded to speak out against cruelty and injustice and to take an active, responsible and visible stance against wrongdoing; what has been called ‘active bystandership’ (Staub 2005, 54–55).

Emotional Need Relevance for Socio-Emotional Well-being

Security Experiences that foster the development of a sense of physical and psychological security, such that one considers oneself secure and protected against physical or psychological threats.

Effectiveness and control

Opportunities to develop a sense of capacity for self-protection and goal achievement.

Positive sense of Identity

Experience that allow for self-appreciation, self-awareness and desire to forge social relationships.

Comprehension of reality

Development of an understanding of the world and its people (identities and functionalities).

Positive sense of belonging

The ability to enjoy and draw energies from one’s contacts and relationships with other people or groups.

Independence and autonomy

Opportunities to take initiatives, as well as to choose and select on one’s own (feeling of being independent).

Transcendence Opportunity to relate oneself towards realities beyond one’s current “personal reality” (e.g. nature, the arts spirituality, social activism).

Anticipated ‘pro-social’ dispositional outcomes

r Self-confidence, self-esteem

r Minimization of fear

r Desire to reach out positive relationships; openness for social interactions

r Positive outlook/attitude to personal reality and existence

r Trust in one’s capacity to transform oneself

r Positive outlook and capacity towards others

r Enchanced understanding of one’s own responsibilities and role in life

r Constructive patriotism

r Moral courage

r Active bystandership

r Maintained faith in the world and themselves

Figure 2. Basic emotional needs and the pro-social dispositional outcomes (Staub 2003)


• Is likewise encouraged to develop a sense of social and moral obligation and responsibility to the multiple groups that make up their nation and, so, are open to an understanding of ‘national good’ that transcends and runs counter to that holding sway within their own group; what has been called ‘constructive patriotism’ (Staub 2005, 34–37). In the name of the good of the wider national community they learn that, sooner or later, occasionally or often, that they will need to speak out in opposition, holding and standing by a “separate enough perspective to question the problematic policies and practices of their own group” (36, 56).

Transforming young citizens into active bystanders and constructive patriots is a complex matter involving:

• Developing critical thinking skills, lateral and creative thinking skills, dialogic, listening and other communication skills.

• Developing change advocacy and change agency skills.

• Fostering confidence, respectful assertiveness, moral courage, self-esteem and empathetic awareness.

• Building awareness of, and resistance to, the tendency in human groups to negatively image, devalue and scapegoat those who seem different, as they bond and bolster the (false) security of their own group.

• Creating social learning spaces where those who see themselves as different can meet, exchange ideas, perspectives and cultural narratives, get to know each other personally and, perhaps most important of all, work together cooperatively in pursuit of a common agreed goal (see the learning processes featured later in this report, especially in 4.3.4.2).4

• Helping learners acquire an inclusive world view and value system through which they see themselves and their group as entities reciprocally connected to other groups and to the wider whole.

In each of the boxed case studies offered throughout this document, relevant basic emotional needs that the initiative is satisfying are identified under ‘Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects’. Other peacebuilding-relevant education interventions that do not directly relate to individual capacity development in children but that significantly contribute to conflict prevention and the transformation of relationships include community-sponsored schools reinventing themselves as ‘zones of peace’ (see box 1); recruitment policies that insist on representative, accountable and transparent recruitment practices; access to education services for marginalized groups; culturally and gender-sensitive curriculums; minority language policies;5 and good education governance.

3.3 Newfocusesandemphasesinconflict-sensitiveeducation and education for peacebuilding

There has been growing interest in conflating disaster risk reduction (DRR) and conflict risk reduction in UNICEF, including in the sphere of education. For instance, the UNICEF West and Central Africa Regional Office (WCARO), working with UNESCO and other partners, has developed guidance notes on integrating conflict and disaster risk reduction into education sector planning (UNESCO IIEP and UNICEF WCARO 2011). The approach has been referred to as ‘DRR-plus’ (Selby and Kagawa 2012). One of the key lessons learned from the first-year operation of UNICEF PBEA is that “conflict sensitivity cannot be viewed in isolation from the disaster risk reduction process” and there is a “need for integrated conflict-sensitive and disaster risk reduction education


sector planning in regions that face frequent complex emergencies that combine both natural hazards and conflict or political unrest” (UNICEF 2013d, xiii).

The UNICEF Strategic Plan 2014–2017 commits to strengthening “involvement in systematic reduction of vulnerability to disaster and conflicts through risk-informed country programmes that help build resilience” (UN 2013a, 10). UNICEF had earlier defined resilience as “the ability of countries, communities and households to anticipate, adapt to, and/or recover from the effects of potentially hazardous occurrences (natural disasters, economic instability, conflict) in a manner that reduces vulnerability, protects livelihoods, accelerates and sustains recovery, and supports economic and social development” (UNICEF 2012i). In its forward programing for resilience, the organization thus gives implicit, if not explicit, recognition to the overlapping nature of social resilience (the ability of societies to cope with risk, stress and disturbance) and ecological resilience (the ability of ecosystems to recover from disturbance and duress).

From this interlinkage, a four-pronged programmatic approach to resilience building has emerged, comprising four interrelated strands, as shown in figure 3: climate change adaptation, social protection, disaster risk reduction and peacebuilding (Volkmann 2013). Having worked in these programmatic areas separately on behalf of children in contexts of shock, stress and fragility, “UNICEF is not starting from scratch in terms of resilience. What has been missing however has been a deliberate and consistent effort to strengthen the resilience of children, communities and systems by understanding the nature of risk, including vulnerability, capacity and exposure” (UNICEF 2013a, 1). UNICEF is in process of bringing these building blocks for resilience closer together so as to increase the coherence of its operation. In so doing, there is the perceived added bonus that a holistic approach to vulnerability reduction provides “unique opportunities to improve the links between humanitarian response and development programs and to promote human security” (UN 2013a, 10). These new developments bring up new dimensions in peacebuilding education.

Figure 3. UNICEF’s approach to resilience (Volkmann 2013)


Captured in these new risk-informed programming orientations are the following spoken or unspoken assumptions and insights:

• Volatility and shock from conflict and/or disaster can impede and reverse development gains.

• Lack of social cohesion makes a community more vulnerable to conflict and natural disaster.

• Community risk analysis is vital for forestalling both conflict and disaster.

• The drivers of disaster risk and climate change vulnerability and vulnerability to conflict are more or less the same.

• Individual capacity to contribute to resilience is most likely to be manifest in those with well-developed life skills married with pro-social dispositions such as concern, care, compassion, responsible citizenship, responsiveness to need, preparedness to reach out to others and readiness to participate in community action for transformation.

3.4 Implementationaspectsofconflict-sensitiveeducationandeducation for peacebuilding

What complicates the facilitation of social transformation processes is the need for individual and structural transformation to be mutually reinforcing if they are to take root and achieve comprehensive and sustained impact. A helpful way to depict this interplay is captured by Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory, upon which the socioecological model illustrated in figure 4 draws a model earlier applied to peacebuilding by Miller and Affolter (2002, 6).

Figure 4. Socioecological model

MACROSYSTEM

EXOSYSTEM

MICROSYSTEM

Cultural Attitudes & Ideologies

Wider Extended Family

Family Friends

LocalMedia

LocalGovernance

& Institutions Social Support

Network

Local NaturalEnvironment

Legal System

& Services

Legal CommunityNuclear and

ImmediateExtended Family

Health Services

Faith Group

ImmediateNatural

Environment

NeighborhoodPlay area

Siblings

Peers

Parents

School

Child

Social Network

Bio-regional& WiderNatural

Environment

Mass Media

National, Sub-national & International Governance

& Institutions

National, Sub-national &International Networks

SocialPolicies

Neighbors


As the model indicates, from the socioecological perspective, change that is triggered at one level can have ripple effects out to all other layers, as well as potential rebounding effects with the potential to skew original intentions. Actions at the micro-system level (the environmental system that is closest to the child and in which the child’s immediate interactions take place) can have reverberations at the exo-system level (comprising those environmental elements having a profound influence on a child’s development even though the child is not directly or so regularly involved with them) and the macro-system level (the wider culture and context in which the child resides) – and vice versa.6 A theory of change for sustainable social transformation could thus be formulated as follows (after UNICEF 2012h) [bold and capitals followed from the original]:

• IF education inputs at the micro-system level are underlined and reinforced by social-political and cultural endorsements at the exo-system and macro-system levels, THEN the change intervention is likely to become more effective and sustainable.

• IF local actions spring up simultaneously in many different areas and are purposefully connected, THEN local actions can emerge as a powerful system with large-scale influence.

• IF policies facilitate the formation of platforms where pro-social learning initiatives and networking become an opportunity, THEN local action initiatives resulting from policy support will more likely and sustainably produce pro-social learning results.

For peacebuilding practitioners, programme designers and curriculum developers interested in taking forward initiatives informed by socioecological-sensitive insights, some of the key implementation questions to ask themselves are:

• How can peacebuilding education efforts be strategized at the micro-system (classroom and school) level to support and propel forward broader peacebuilding goals (political, security, economic and social transformation) across conflict-affected contexts – and vice versa?

• How can critical pathways and nodes and networks of support and reinforcement be developed across the levels in advancing an initiative triggered at any one level?

• How can ‘soft’ (non-structural) changes, especially at the micro-system level (e.g., a new teaching and learning initiative) be brought to the point where they inform, then transform into, structural and systemic change – thus ensuring the sustainability of gains made?

UNICEF has critically reflected on its approaches to peacebuilding, pointing out that “peacebuilding remains too ad hoc and inconsistent, and lacks a systematic approach” (UNICEF 2012c, 8). Such reflections inform PBEA, which is attempting to do justice to the multilayered human ecological approach. It is doing this by requiring work plans and actions that embrace and create synergies between policy, institutional and individual capacity development and social service and research interventions. Initiatives in their combined impact aim to systematically address conflict drivers, with developments in any one sphere or at any one level reinforcing, consolidating and helping to render sustainable developments across all other spheres and levels.

In the full case study boxes throughout the main text of this document, initiatives are scrutinized through a socioecological lens.


© U

NIC

EF/

PAK

A20

12-0

0090

/Zai

di


4.1 Introduction

Section 4 examines the underpinning principles and key features of the child-friendly school from a peacebuilding perspective, looking at different dimensions of schooling – including school environment and ethos; curriculum, teaching and learning; school and community; and the school as a learning organization. As we look at each dimension and attendant features, we identify child-friendly approaches that are to a greater or lesser extent already ‘peacebuilding resonant’ although they may not be characterized as such by those who promote and practise them.

Second, we point out child-friendly elements and approaches that are undeveloped or non-manifest in peacebuilding terms. These are considered to be ‘peacebuilding latent’, carrying peacebuilding potential but a potential that lies dormant and untapped. We include under this heading elements of CFE theory not yet translated into practice that would help contribute to peacebuilding if they were implemented.

Third, we examine ‘peacebuilding gaps’ – gaps in the CFS framework that would need to be filled were child-friendly schools to aspire to a more prominent and thoroughgoing peacebuilding role. Filling each gap, we maintain, would also consolidate and render more complete child-friendly school provision. The same spectrum – resonant<>latent<>gap – is also used as we

Section 4

The child-friendly school through a peacebuilding lens

Figure 5. CFS and Peacebuilding: Analytical spectrum

Peacebuilding gap

Peacebuilding latentPeacebuilding resonant


review system-wide child-friendly education in section 5 (and illustrated in figure 5). The progress indicators addressing different features of the child-friendly school as laid out in appendix 2 are framed within the same spectrum. At the close of each subsection within sections 4 and 5, a summary table indicates whether the CFS aspects considered reveal a peacebuilding gap or where they stand on a continuum between peacebuilding ‘latent’ and ‘resonant’.

Table 1 summarizes the practical steps that can be taken by way of transforming the child-friendly school into a peacebuilding school as described in section 4 and section 5. At the micro-system and exo-system levels, activities are identified, student learning benefits and emotional benefits enumerated, and costs involved are indicated. At the macro-systemic level, where the information moves away from the student in school, less detailed information is offered. Both sections of the table direct the reader to relevant case material in this report.

It needs emphasizing that most of the practical suggestions should not be regarded as ‘one-off’ occurrences but as ongoing, recurring or routine events and interventions. To make a difference to the thinking, psyche and behaviour of children, reinforcement and repetition is sine qua non.

Table 1: Summary of CFS for peacebuilding actions

MICRO and EXO LEVELS

CFS feature Aspect Activity Key student learning benefits

Key student emotional benefits

Cost Relevant examples

School environment and ethos (4.2)

School physical environment (4.2.1)

Students engaged in protecting physical site from harm and violence (4.2.1)

Critical thinking; leadership skills; communication skills

Security; positive sense of belonging (more trust and mutual respect)

L Nepal case study (box 1)

Murals, artwork, school gardens (4.2.1)

Creativity; design; cooperative skills

Effectiveness and control; positive sense of belonging; transcendence

V Text discussion: Albania (4.2.1)

Non-violent school culture (4.2.2.1)

Peer monitoring of violence with sharing and mutual support linked to code of conduct (4.2.2.1)

Speaking out; articulating values and concerns

Security; effectiveness and control; positive sense of belonging (solidarity)


Synoptic case study 1: Rwanda (appendix 1)

Text discussion: Macedonia (4.2.2.1)

Sharing circles and other discussion devices (4.2.2.1)

Mutual understanding; expressing ideas and concerns; listening

Security; Positive sense of belonging (empathy and mutual respect)

L Case studies: Sierra Leone (box 2) and Democratic Republic of the Congo (box 11)

Peer juries (4.2.2.1 Internalizing idea of personal accountability; acculturation to due process in reconciliation and restitution

Security; positive sense of belonging

L

Key: L = low cost outlay; V = varied cost outlay, dependent on chosen scope of initiative; H = high cost outlay 7

u


Peer mediation of interpersonal conflicts (4.2.2.1)

Non-violent conflict resolution

Security; effectiveness and control;

Afghanistan case study (box 7)

Whole-school strategy for promoting culture of non-violence (4.2.2.1)

Reinforced learning immersion in a culture and processes of peacebuilding

Security; positive sense of belonging

V Case studies: Kenya (box 3); Colombia (box 9); and Serbia (box 14)

Synoptic case 2: UNRWA (appendix 1)

Inclusive school culture (4.2.2.2)

Ensuring all cultures feature in school life and the curriculum (4.2.2.2)

Creativity; positive cross-cultural learning and appreciation

Security (for minorities and marginalized); positive sense of identity and of cultural belonging

L Colombia case study (box 4)

Text discussion: Belize and Lao People’s Democratic Republic (4.2.2.2)

Using sports to build inclusive culture and social cohesion (4.2.2.2)

Teamwork; self-esteem; positive outlook towards others

Effectiveness and control; positive sense of belonging

V Text discussion: Rwanda (4.2.2.2)

Curriculum, teaching and learning (4.3)

Curriculum content (4.3.1)

Peace and human rights oriented learning programmes (4.3.1)

Peace and human rights values, concepts and issues: notions and practices of citizenship and democracy; life skills for social cohesion and non-violence

Security; effectiveness and control; positive sense of identity and belonging; comprehension of reality; transcendence

H Case studies: Kenya (box 3) and Liberia (box 5)

Synoptic case 3: Kyrgyzstan (appendix 1)

Plural and parallel citizenship education (4.3.2)

Programmes that exemplify the varied nature of allegiance and identity (4.3.2)

Understanding notions of ‘greater good’; learning to argue from and for alternative perspectives

Positive sense of identity; comprehension of reality; independence and autonomy; transcendence

H Rwanda case study (box 6)

Text discussion: Macedonia (4.3.2)

Negotiated curriculum (4.3.3)

Students given some degree of determination over curriculum content (4.3.3)

Learning how to argue a case, negotiate, reach consensus and ‘live’ democracy

Effectiveness and control; independence and autonomy

L Synoptic case study 4: Nepal – example refers to community negotiated curriculum (appendix 1)

Child-centred learning (4.3.4)

Students working cooperatively on a regular basis to achieve a set common goal (4.3.4)

Mutual reliance; critical thinking; moral courage and assuredness in negotiating disputed issues collaboratively (4.3.4)


V


Giving students structured opportunities to express and share post-conflict emotions, hopes and fears (4.3.4.2)

Self-confidence; self-esteem; an altruistic sense of the ‘other’; pro-social dispositions (4.3.4.2)

Psychosocial healing; higher self-esteem; security; positive sense of identity; transcendence

V Case studies: Colombia (box 4); Afghanistan (box 7); and State of Palestine (box 10)

Synoptic case studies 5: Colombia 6: State of Palestine; 7: Sri Lanka (appendix 1).

Developing critical media literacy (4.3.4.3)

Learning to ask critical questions of, decode and deconstruct media messages (4.3.4.3)

Independence and autonomy

V Slovenia case study (box 8)

Text discussion: Macedonia (4.3.4.3).

Including future-oriented learning in classroom programmes (4.3.4.4 )

Learning about probable and possible futures while envisaging (and learning how to shape) preferred futures (4.3.4.4 )

Effectiveness and control; comprehension of reality; transcendence

L Uganda case study (box 16)

Synoptic case study 7: Sri Lanka (appendix 1)

School as community – school in community (4.4)

Student participation at school (4.4.1)

Students join peace clubs as platforms for child-led action for peace (4.4.1)

Learning to take action for peace within the safe confines of the school; collaboration and leadership skills

Security; effectiveness and control; positive sense of belonging


Synoptic case study 1: Rwanda (appendix 1)

Text discussion: Ethiopia and State of Palestine (4.4.1)

Students participate in representative school bodies and take action for peace (4.4.1)

Learning to speak out for inter-group harmony and social cohesion and justice

Security; effectiveness and control; positive sense of belonging

L Colombia case study (box 9)

Student participation in and with the community (4.4.2)

Students participate in peacebuilding actions (4.4.2)

Learning advocacy, how to take action for change and about processes of participatory democracy

Effectiveness and control; positive sense of identity and belonging; independence and autonomy

L Case studies: State of Palestine (box 10); Democratic Republic of the Congo (box 11); 12, Generations for Peace (box 12); and Nigeria (box 13)

Synoptic case study 12: West Africa (appendix 1)

Using sports to build inclusive culture and social cohesion (4.4.2)

Teamwork; self-esteem; positive outlook towards others


V Case studies: Generations for Peace (box 12); Nigeria (box 13); and Serbia (box 14).

u


Students participate in peace promotion using conventional and social media (4.4.2)

Creativity; message making and message dissemination

Effectiveness and control; positive sense of identity and belonging; independence and autonomy

L Synoptic case studies 8: Burundi and 12: West Africa (appendix 1).

School as community hub/entry point (4.4.3)

As the school becomes a hub for local peace building, students fulfil a change function (4.4.3)

Learning to participate in processes for building social cohesion

Effectiveness and control; sense of identity and belonging


Text discussion: Haiti and Sudan (4.4.3)

School as learning organization (4.5)

School self- assessment and school improvement planning (4.5.1)

Students join in self- assessment and planning (4.5.1)

Critical thinking skills; listening/ communication skills; learning to reconcile and rebuild community

Effectiveness and control; sense of identity and belonging

L

Monitoring and Evaluation (4.5.2)

Students participate in action research (4.5.1)

Research skills and methods (enquiry, surveys, analysis and reporting)

Effectiveness and control; positive sense of belonging; independence and autonomy

L Synoptic case study 9: Senegal (appendix 1)

Text discussion: CEE/CIS (4.5.2)

Uganda case study (box 16).

MACRO LEVEL

CFS feature Cost Relevant examples

Professional development (5.1) H Synoptic case studies 10: International Rescue Committee and 11: Sierra Leone (appendix 1)

Situation analysis (5.2) V

Multi-sector, multi-level and partnership approaches (5.3)

V Text discussion: Mozambique, Tanzania and Eritrea (5.3)

National policy and framework development (5.4) V Text discussion: Uganda and Thailand (5.4)

Case studies: Serbia (box 14) and Sri Lanka (box 15)

National team (5.5) L Text discussion: Macedonia and Lao People’s Democratic Republic (5.5)

Monitoring and evaluation (5.6) L Uganda case study (box 16)


4.2 School environment and ethos

4.2.1 Physical environment [peacebuilding resonant<>latent]

Creating safe, healthy and protective school infrastructures based on child-friendly principles and standards, including gender sensitivity, is a well-developed component of CFS thinking that has seen widespread implementation (UNICEF 2009a, 2009b). In conflict-affected situations, a safe, secure and strong physical school building is an important contributory factor in the physical protection of children, offering a shield against violent and exploitative forces. That said, it is important to address the risk of school buildings becoming targets of attack (see, for instance, UNESCO 2010).

Although creating well-constructed school infrastructures is often a tangible first step in creating child-friendly schools, “this alone is not sufficient to make a school child-friendly” and “less tangible aspects” – such as engagement by school stakeholders and children and the level of mutual respect between them – largely determine if a school is child friendly or not (UNICEF 2009b, xi). Creating synergies between tangible environmental aspects and intangible elements is vital.

In this regard, the CFS manual suggests active involvement of users in all school design phases, including community involvement in school construction and children’s involvement in school maintenance (UNICEF 2009a). This point clearly overlaps with the call from within conflict-sensitive education for inclusive community involvement in school site location, construction and restoration (INEE 2013). A maintained community presence at school can be seen as a “protecting witness” in that it can serve as a “deterrent for individuals and parties wanting to harm children” (Nicolai and Triplehorn 2003, 21). In Nepal, local communities working with the Children as Zones of Peace national coalition declared schools as ‘Zones of Peace’ and played an active role in school site protection. Community negotiation with armed groups led to all-party agreement on criteria for school protection from violence (see box 1).

Involving children in activities such as school maintenance and chores helps them establish a sense of control over and identification with their own learning environment, which in turn positively contributes to developing their coping and resilience capacities (Alexander, Boothby and Wessells 2010). From a peacebuilding perspective, child protection gained through school infrastructural development needs to be purposefully expanded to open up child involvement opportunities engaging the learner in critical thinking, collaboration and practise of communication skills while fostering mutual trust and respect.

An example of connecting the school physical environment and child participation is employing child-centred disaster risk and vulnerability assessment at schools, a manifestation of the increasingly important area of disaster risk reduction education (Plan International 2010; UNICEF 2012a) (see, also, 4.4.2). The same approach can be applied to conflict-affected and fragile contexts (Sinclair 2010). For instance, children in groups might identify conflict-related risk and vulnerabilities at school, reflect on their findings, and communicate in creative ways with the wider school community, e.g., posters, flyers, songs, street theatre, public meetings and social media. (For more information on student participation, see subsections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.)

Children, teachers and community members might also work collaboratively to create school murals on the rights of the child, as was implemented at a primary school in an economically deprived and multi-ethnic district of the Albanian capital, Tirana (Selby 2008). CFS initiatives have


Background and activities

Between 1996 and 2006, the Nepalese Communist Party (Maoists) conducted a violent rebellion against the state with consequent loss of some 14,000 lives as well as severe damage to state infrastructure. The rebellion took a severe toll on educational services and child safety. Maoist and state forces used schools as military camps, schools were used as campaigning arenas by political groups, schools were often closed because of outbreaks of violence, strikes and protests, children were recruited into armed groups and witnessed violence on school premises, and teachers were abducted, terrorized or killed. A comprehensive peace accord, signed in November 2006, greatly diminished but did not altogether eradicate violence and the fragile political environment was marked by wave after wave of anti-government strikes.8

Coinciding with the 2006 peace process, Schools as Zones of Peace (SZOP) was launched as a flagship programme of the Children as Zones of Peace (CZOP) national coalition that included Save the Children and UNICEF. SZOP was directed at reducing the climate of fear surrounding schools in a still unsettled post-conflict context. It did this by working to reduce school closures caused by strikes and political activity, reducing any armed presence in and around schools, addressing the misuse of school grounds and buildings, strengthening school governance, and improving conflict resolution and increasing inclusiveness in schools.9

When a school expressed interest in taking on SZOP status, coalition partners helped bring together different stakeholders, including armed groups and political parties, to forge consensus on how to protect students, teachers and school premises from being caught up in conflict. Communities negotiated with armed groups and achieved agreement on criteria for school protection from violence and political interference.10 Key to successful consensus building was making the focus of SZOP one of protecting

children and learning from disturbances of whatever kind rather than one of excluding armed political groups. In this way, such groups were assured of SZOP neutrality.11

Central to the SZOP process is the drawing up of a school code of conduct agreed to by all stakeholders. Most SZOP schools have developed their own code of conduct with children, parents, teachers and school managers participating in the drafting process. Sometimes the decision is taken to have separate codes for students, teachers and parents. The “process of bringing together disparate groups to formulate a CoC [code of conduct] is often as important as the signed CoC. The CoC development process permits interaction among school, community, pupils and other actors and promotes greater transparency and accountability, strengthening the school’s capacity for governance.”12

Written in simple language, codes of conduct outlaw weapons, political meetings, recruitment and slogans on campus, take a stance against all forms of violence (including corporal punishment of children and bullying), raise the bar in terms of teacher and student attendance and discipline, and prohibit inter-ethnic and caste discrimination. They also address specific local peace and conflict issues. In most cases, the codes are painted on the exterior wall of the school. Enjoying a prominence that a paper version could not achieve, they serve as a visible, up-front moral prompt to stakeholders to live up to what has been agreed.

A masterstroke of the SZOP process has been to build upon the longstanding history of child clubs in Nepal schools – there are an estimated 10, 000 active clubs in the country – by having children lead SZOP initiatives.13 In addition, “maintaining the Code of Conduct gave child clubs a clear mandate and purpose in schools. …Child clubs have worked to minimize teacher absenteeism and increase teachers’ regularity in school by pointing out to them if they were late or absent. They have worked with

Box 1. Nepal: Schools as Zones of Peace


students to reduce bullying, to respond to complaints and concerns of younger children and to improve discipline.”14 In one school, for example, students formed a separate student council to monitor adherence to the code of conduct – and most SZOP schools have a student representative on the school management committee.

Demonstrable change effected

Given that SZOP was introduced to schools just as the peace process was in full swing, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the improvement in school security ushered in as the programme took hold can be credited to the programme itself. However, schools that took on SZOP status in the latter stages of the conflict were able to negotiate with armed groups and prevent them entering the school premises. There is evidence, moreover, that SZOP schools have enjoyed greater protection against the waves of protest strikes in the years after the peace accord.15

Not only is there strong evidence of increased child commitment to maintaining and developing the school as a zone of peace but parents and other community members have acquired the confidence and commitment to actively support the programme. Codes of conduct have led to greater teacher accountability and increased their professionalism,

not least in terms of giving children greater opportunities for self-expression and other child-friendly approaches.

The CZOP coalition has built on its success by negotiating district-wide SZOP agreements, while the Nepal Ministry of Education has embedded SZOP in its own policies. There is now interest in expanding the SZOP model internationally “in all education programs in contexts of conflict.” 16

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Building a non-violent, inclusive and protective school culture; having children participate in processes of peaceful change; developing infrastructures and processes for child democracy; having parents and community members commit to actively improving the quality of children’s learning; and addressing emotional needs such as security, effectiveness and control, positive sense of identity and belonging.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: From the outset, the initiative worked across micro-system and exo-system layers in multiple contexts, with negotiated agreements and codes leading to the CZOP approach being built into structures and systems at the macro-system (national governance and policy) level.

often used murals, artwork and school gardens to improve the school environment (UNICEF 2009b). Employing the same approaches within a peacebuilding frame offers practical entry points for building community cohesion and inclusion through child-centred, school-based action optimally involving teams crossing ethnic divides and thereby channelling pent-up emotion and resentment into creative action. Such activities also help develop children’s creative capacities and their sense of belonging.

4.2.2 School culture

The CFS framework emphasizes the importance of creating a school culture underpinned by principles of child-centredness, inclusion and democratic participation across all aspects of school operation.


4.2.2.1 Non-violent school culture [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

In fragile conflict-affected contexts, creating a culture of non-violence within schools is critical, especially when children have lost the sense of what it means to live in a harmonious and non-aggressive way – given their frequent exposure to violence and injustice, combined with the erosion of stable family and community functions (Alexander, Boothby and Wessells 2010).

The CFS framework places great emphasis on addressing physical and psychological threats and violence to children at and around schools, including such threats as corporal punishment and verbal harassment by teachers and parents, student-on-student violence, bullying, sexual violence, and dangers in commuting to and from school. Suggested strategies include providing training for teachers, parents and community members in alternative forms of discipline, and setting up school complaint mechanisms through which abuses and rights violations can be reported. Children are encouraged to create their own code of conduct for the classroom and for the school, and to express their concerns freely (UNICEF 2009a). As we have seen in Nepal (box 1), child clubs are playing a leading role in forming and maintaining school codes of conduct. In other examples, the CFS initiative in Macedonia has employed peer monitoring of violence during school break time (UNICEF 2009c). In Rwanda, 54 child-friendly schools established Tuseme clubs (‘Tuseme’ meaning “Let’s speak out” in Swahili) to encourage children to support each other to speak out about and take action on issues of concern including gender inequality and gender-based violence (see synoptic case study 1).

The approaches described below – ‘circle time’, peer juries and peer mediation – would be helpful as a peacebuilding enrichment of child-friendly schooling using child-to-child mechanisms for dealing with everyday violence and conflict at the classroom and school levels.

Circle time: Sharing circles are generally used “to develop listening and speaking skills, to build group trust, to pool feelings, experiences, ideas and information” (Greig, Pike and Selby 1989, 79). They are also used to resolve conflicts in the classroom and school. Called ‘reflect-action’ circles, the approach has been used in Pakistan by Save the Children to identify children’s protection concerns (Nicolai and Triplehorn 2003). For peacebuilding, circle time can be used to build mutual understanding, empathy and respect (e.g., children of different communities share hopes and fears, explain aspects of their culture) or for initial action planning (e.g., children pool and build upon on each other’s ideas for peace-oriented community action and partnership).

The circle time method is effective beyond the micro-level of classroom and school. For instance, adolescent girls-only and boys-only discussion groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo offered safe spaces where adolescents could share, discuss and learn about issues that are important to them (see box 11). Building on indigenous communal custom and traditions, ‘Fambul Tok’ in Sierra Leone uses the ‘community sharing circle’ for engaging children and youth perpetrators and victims of armed conflict for purposes of community reconciliation (see box 2). Circle discussions have real potential in meeting basic emotional needs such as a positive sense of belonging, comprehension of reality, and independence and autonomy.

Peer juries: These offer an alternative form of discipline of a peer-to-peer variety. The process is triggered when a student has broken a school rule or code of conduct or harmed or offended one or more other students. Typically, students sit or stand in a circle with a teacher present and, going around the circle, discuss causes and impacts of the offending behaviour before negotiating suitable forms of restitution and reconciliation (Alternatives 2013a; Hirschinger-Blank et al., 2009). This and similar approaches are ideally suited for fostering democratic governance at classroom



Fambul Tok (Krio for ‘Family Talk’) draws inspiration from the Sierra Leonean tradition of discussing and resolving issues within the security of the family circle. It arose out of the atrocity-filled 1991–2002 civil war that left some 50,000 dead. The Fambul Tok process is a community-owned programme bringing together perpetrators and victims of violence, including ex-combatants and survivors of civil war. Based upon the principle of ‘emergent design’, it leaves each community to shape its own process according to its own needs and perceptions. To ensure easy accessibility, it was decided to devolve the reconciliation process to the sectional level, a ‘section’ being made up of three to nine villages within a chiefdom.

Volunteers charged with implementing Fambul Tok in their communities were trained in reconciliation processes, communicating in conflict situations, mediation and trauma healing. Reconciliation processes and ceremonies are unique to each community but generally follow a similar pattern. Drawing on indigenous traditions of confession, apology and forgiveness, communities host an evening truth-telling bonfire around which victims and perpetrators relate their stories and ask for, or offer, forgiveness. On the next day, communities participate in traditional cleansing ceremonies, followed by a communal feast.

After the ceremonies, the reconciliation process is sustained in a number of ways. Communities identify a ‘peace tree’ as a meeting place for settling community and individual disputes. A radio listening club, managed by youth, is also established. The community meets once a week to discuss reconciliation issues, and a cassette recording is made with selections broadcast weekly by local radio. There is also a ‘Football for Reconciliation’ programme involving games between villages in a section and following which any disputes arising during the game are peacefully resolved. Victims and

perpetrators also work together on village-initiated community farms. ‘Peace Mothers’, women’s groups providing sustained support for women who have told their stories of rape around the bonfire, are also formed.17 In the first five years of the programme, 150 reconciliation processes took place, with more than 2,700 people testifying to 60,000 of their neighbours.18

Children and youth are involved throughout the Fambul Tok process. Alongside the community processes described, efforts have begun to integrate the Fambul Tok philosophy and approach into the national school curriculum. In 2013, an educational programme was introduced in two schools in each of six districts to “mobilize a new generation in grassroots peacemaking and reconciliation.” The programme is intended for use in class but also to support Fambul Tok student peace clubs, recently initiated, and ongoing work in community building. To support the programme, a facilitator handbook and student workbook written for middle and high school but also for community use were made available in 2013.19 The two resources are for use in conjunction with an educational version of the full-length film Fambul Tok.20

The learning programme features Fambul Tok reconciliation processes alongside powerful stories of individual and community forgiveness, restorative justice and reconciliation. It encourages reflection on building and maintaining a strong community, building a culture of forgiveness, the links between culture and beliefs and conflict resolution and problem solving, and the quality of peace gained through restorative justice as against punitive justice.

A ‘main idea’ running through the programme is that the “traditions and customs specific to a given culture can be rich and influential resources in founding lasting, effective justice systems.” The educational guide offers five-day and one-day lesson plans; stimulus material on Sierra Leone’s geography and pre-conflict history; an account of post-conflict

Box 2. Sierra Leone: Fambul Tok

u


and school levels, responsible citizenship, leadership and social accountability. They meet the basic emotional need for effectiveness and control.

Peer mediation: This is a process through which interpersonal conflict between students at school is resolved with the assistance of students trained in mediation (Alternatives 2013b; Tyrrell and Farrell 1995). Child mediation training and practice in the microcosm of the school helps children and youth realize that they can resolve conflict by using non-violent means. First-hand experience of non-violent mediation processes may not only help develop positive interpersonal relationships at school but also enable children and youth to play a positive role in resolving community tensions. In Help the Afghan Children’s Peace Education programme (see box 7), trained student peer mediators facilitate problem-solving between students using role playing and mediation techniques. Peer mediation has great potential in meeting basic emotional needs such as security, effectiveness and control, and independence and autonomy.

In creating a non-violent school culture, a ‘whole school response’ has been effective as demonstrated by the ‘School Without Violence’ programme in Serbia (see box 14). Under the programme, creating a safe school environment involving children, teachers, head teachers and other school staff members goes hand in hand with establishing proactive supportive networks in the wider (exo-systemic) environment that bring together municipal authorities, media, police, social welfare centres, health centres, parents and citizens’ associations. Students in Escuela Nueva

truth, reconciliation and judicial processes; and a chronology of Fambul Tok. Particularly striking are the lively, participatory learning approaches that have students taking and making a stand on statements about justice, power and responsibility, discussing what being part of a community means, reacting to films during circle time and reacting to current instances of inter-community violence happening anywhere in the world through a Fambul Tok lens.21


Fambul Tok initially took hold in 4 districts of Sierra Leone but is in process of rolling out to all 14 districts.22 The approach has been taken on in inner-city contexts in the United States as a means of curbing gang violence. The educational guide has been published for international consumption, particularly in the United States, as well as for Sierra Leonean usage. Given that school-based Fambul Tok initiatives are of fairly recent origin and that the earlier involvement of children and youth took place seamlessly within a community-wide process, there is a lack of clear evidence of demonstrable change being brought about through school developments.

Fambul Tok more generally has had a powerful influence on community rebuilding for a culture of peace in post-conflict Sierra Leone.

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Developing peace processes based on indigenous communal custom and tradition; engaging children and youth in community reconciliationprocesses;usingsporttohealconflict;learningaboutpost-conflictcommunitybuildinginboth curricular and co-curricular contexts; using participatory learning to reinforce a peace ethic; and addressing emotional needs such as positive sense of belonging.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Working initially at the exo-system (community) level, Fambul Tok is now taking root within a limited number of schools (micro-system level). While it is significantlyinfluencingculturalchangeinSierraLeone, it has yet to become embedded in macro-systemic (national governance and policy) structures and systems.


schools in Colombia learn about peaceful coexistence through actively participating in all aspects of schooling (see box 4). The ‘Education for Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and Tolerance’ programme of the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) aims at creating a human rights culture at all UNRWA schools, using as entry points teaching and learning, teacher preparation and professional development, as well as opportunities provided by the learning environment. At UNRWA schools, it is understood that human rights will be practised and lived across the whole school community at all times (see synoptic case study 2). The ‘Peace Education Programme’ in Kenya highlights, among other things, the importance of head teachers’ leadership in creating a non-violent culture in classroom, school and community (see box 3).


As a priority response, action to address the educational needs of teachers and pupils who had been adversely affected by the post-election violence of 2007–2008 in Kenya, the Ministry of Education, supported by development partners that included UNICEF, developed the Peace Education Programme. The aim of the programme was to enhance values-based education for peaceful coexistence, respect for human dignity and appreciation of diversity, as well as to empower learners with the skills to address conflict peacefully (e.g., critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving and non-violent resolution).23

A set of peace education materials – including a training manual, teacher activity books for Grades 1–8 and a storybook for children – were developed by adapting the existing Inter- Agency Standing Committee-approved peace education materials to the Kenyan context. More than 10,000 sets of the materials were distributed to schools. Using a cascade approach of one-week training workshops, 8,837 field education officers, head teachers and teachers were trained (prioritizing those located in Rift Valley and Nyanza Provinces, which had been most severely affected by the post-election violence). 24

According to monitoring research conducted in 2011, at 76 per cent of the researched schools,

peace education components were taught within existing subjects such as life skills education. Various co-curricular and whole-school initiatives were also employed at the school level. Nearly half of the researched schools established peace clubs. Their activities included: addressing pressing issues through drama, art, writing, poems, dances and discussion; displaying posters with peace messages; advocating for peace among parents and community members; conducting environmental conservation activities; and providing support for the sick and disabled in the community.

Head teachers made numerous efforts to promote a culture of peace. For instance: displaying peace messages in all classes in English and in Kiswahili; sensitizing parents and school management committees to a peace ethic; encouraging empathy, love and care for one another; fostering togetherness and cooperation among students coming from different backgrounds; supporting peace clubs; encouraging every teacher to start lessons with a peace message each Friday; changing seating arrangements in class so learners from different backgrounds mixed; incorporating peace education in the pastoral programme; organizing inter-school peace ball games. As a channel of communication, a suggestion box was installed in about 60 per cent of the researched schools through which learners and community members could express their views without fear.

Box 3. Kenya: Peace Education Programme

u


4.2.2.2 Inclusive school culture [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

Based on the CRC, child-friendly schools strive to be non-discriminatory, gender sensitive and girl friendly in all their aspects (UNICEF 2009a, 2009b). The Global Evaluation Report on child-friendly schools points out that school principals, teachers and parents have made considerable efforts to “include, encourage and support students, regardless of gender or background” (UNICEF 2009b, xii). There are successful examples of schools creating an inclusive, safe and comfortable school atmosphere where more students, especially girls, feel safe and supported. The report has identified that child-friendly pedagogy and family and community participation are “the two most important factors in creating positive school culture” (126) (See more on pedagogy and community participation in subsections 4.3.4 and 4.4.2).

A recent study of child-friendly education reaffirms that realizing equal access to education – an important component of conflict-sensitive education (see 3.2.1) – should be complemented by “a much more proactively inclusive [italics added] approach to diversity” (Shaeffer 2013, 32). This means more thoroughly engaging with and celebrating diversity and seeing it as an opportunity for a richer education that broadens the horizons and enriches the experience of all.

In order to advance proactive inclusion of children from indigenous communities, a CFS initiative in Belize used a number of strategies: introducing culturally relevant indigenous uniforms for teachers and students; employing the indigenous language in instruction along with English; involving community members in curriculum delivery (e.g., teaching traditional music, arts and crafts, offering storytelling sessions by indigenous elders); observing a ‘Cultural Day’ to celebrate local indigenous culture; and creating a regular local radio programme to introduce aspects of indigenous culture. These strategies helped children develop positive identity and pride, which has contributed to active participation in learning. Indigenous parents, welcomed and valued, felt an increasing sense of ownership towards the school. Teachers also felt proud and confident about their identity as


Conflicts between teachers, teachers and students, teachers and administrations, teachers and parents were handled in various peaceful ways such as dialogue, negotiation, forgiveness and mediation processes. Although there is no baseline data for the sake of comparison, students participating in the monitoring research answered that they ‘very often’ play, assist or share ideas with peers from different ethnic groups (52.1 per cent), religion (73.8 per cent) and gender (67.9 per cent).25

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Creating platforms for child participation (e.g., peace clubs); creating a school and classroom climate conducive to inclusivity and peaceful coexistence, for instance, by displaying peace

messages, encouraging interactions between students from different backgrounds; head teacher leadership in creating peaceful school, classroom andcommunityenvironments;handlingconflictsamong school stakeholders peacefully and constructively; developing channels of effective communication (such as suggestion boxes); using arts and sports to promote peaceful relationships; and addressing the emotional need for a positive sense of belonging.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: An initiative emanating at the macro-system level that, through structured and systematic support and reinforcement, has borne fruit at the school (micro-systemic) and community (exo-systemic) levels.


Mayans, and they came to see themselves as advocates for the rights of the children and their own rights as indigenous peoples (Shaeffer 2013).

Such a ‘proactive inclusive approach’ can be characterized as the ‘inclusivity of belonging’ – a deeper degree of inclusion offering platforms and arenas for active and meaningful child learning, sharing and participation – as against the ‘inclusivity of presence,’ defined as school access for all that still fails to give due voice and recognition to all groups present (Kagawa and Selby 2012). As stated by UNICEF, “Inclusion is more than being ‘in’ school: It is feeling ‘part’ of the school” (2011c, 20). And, thus, in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, children participating in school improvement initiatives, displaying their own artwork in the classroom and telling their own stories are just some initiatives that have helped to develop children’s sense of belonging.

Practising sports is one of the important strategies for forging connective bonds between children. In the case of Rwanda, playing sports not only teaches children the importance of teamwork but also meets their emotional need to bond and belong. Through sports, children socialize with each other easily in spite of ethnic and gender differences. Self-esteem and self-confidence are seen to increase, especially among girls (UNICEF ESARO 2009). A number of peacebuilding education case studies in this report – Fambul Tok (box 2), the Peace Education Programme in Kenya (box 3), Generations for Peace (box 12), the Peace Club Project in Nigeria (box 13), the School Without Violence programme in Serbia (box 14) – also feature the use of sport as a means of building social cohesion and mutual understanding between divided groups.

To embrace the most marginalized and vulnerable children in an ‘inclusivity of belonging,’ schools might: invite adult members of marginalized groups to visit classes to tell their stories and otherwise act as resource people; develop learning materials that include minority case studies and give voice to minority perspectives; ask minority children to ‘show and tell’ about their community; employ one-on-one and small group interactive learning to provide a sense of security to minority children before they work in larger groups; use child-to-child learning to build levels of interaction within student groups (Kagawa and Selby 2013). Escuela Nueva in Colombia (box 4) is an example of adopting a ‘proactive inclusive’ or ‘inclusivity of belonging’ approach. Through child-centred teaching and learning methods, linking school and community and creating platforms for student participation in school and community, it has fostered a positive sense of belonging among students.


Escuela Nueva (New School) is a participatory, collaborative and flexible pedagogic model designed in the mid-1970s in Colombia with the aim of improving the quality, equity, relevance and effectiveness of rural multi-grade primary schools. It has been widely adopted nationally and internationally. In the late 1980s, the Government of Colombia adopted Escuela Nueva as a national

policy for rural primary schools. By 2011, the approach had been taken up by approximately 17,000 schools in Colombia, including schools in many places affected by civil war, guerrilla insurgency, drug cartels and paramilitary operations. The model has also been taken up in more than a dozen Latin American countries – with UNICEF playing a critical role in the scaling-up process – as well as by several other countries outside the Americas, reaching approximately 5 million children.26

Box 4. Colombia: Escuela Nueva

u


Escuela Nueva aims at improving academic achievement and developing “peaceful and cooperative interactions that contribute to eliminate prejudices, stereotypes and gender biases” and “civic and democratic values, as well as social and entrepreneurial skills for the twenty-first century.” It promotes classroom and school environments where students actively learn, participate and collaborate in practising democracy – transforming classroom pedagogies from a teacher-centred approach to “a child-centred, active, participatory and collaborative learning approach.” 27

In studying school subjects, students follow ‘learning guides’, self-instructional learning materials carefully designed to promote dialogue and interaction among students. The modular-based learning is flexible, self-paced and self-directed, with students working in pairs, in small groups and individually. Students are actively engaged in the process of knowledge acquisition through expressing their opinions and discussing them with others. By cooperatively making decisions, they develop a sense of autonomy and ownership. Teachers play the role of guide or facilitator in a horizontal, rather than vertical, relationship with their students. They are trained by means of initial and follow-up workshops and also learn and reflect on their own teaching practice by interacting with other teachers through teachers’ learning circles or micro-centres.28

The Escuela Nueva model uses student government as a ‘curricular strategy.’ Student governments have many responsibilities in managing daily school life and solving problems.29 The model also seeks to build stronger and closer school and community relationships by integrating parents and community members into school life in general, and into the learning process in particular. Parents bring their knowledge and experience to student learning through various instruments, including community maps, family cards, community monographs, and agricultural and production calendars. A ‘travelling notebook’ passing between school and home facilitates dialogue between teachers and parents.30

School and community collaborate to address issues most relevant to them. For instance, in the municipalities of Barbosa and Barichara, which faced the risk of increasing social tension due to drastic water shortages, Escuela Nueva schools encouraged behavioural and attitudinal change towards the rational use of water by children, teachers and the community. In addition, they collaborated with communities to increase and protect water resources by, for example, re-covering wells and planting hundreds of trees. As a result, social tensions decreased.31

In 2001, adapting the Escuela Nueva model, the Escuela Nueva Learning Circle programme was created to meet the needs of vulnerable children, 6–15 years old, who were internally displaced and out of school. Working in small groups of around 15 students and led by trained youth tutors from the community, the community-based and alternative learning focuses on developing habits of peaceful coexistence and constructive behaviours by nurturing students’ self-esteem as well as social and life skills. It also helps effect a seamless transition to formal schooling. Since 2006, the Learning Circles programme has been developed to meet the needs of child ex-combatants.32


There are a number of evaluation studies capturing positive improvements not only in student academic achievement but also in student relationships, classroom climate, democratic behaviour and socio-affective development. The most recognized outcomes of Escuela Nueva include greater participation and peaceful coexistence at school, coupled with trusting relationships between students and teachers. Student involvement in school government has contributed to nurturing “positive attitudes towards democracy and citizenship competencies” among students.33 According to a 2006 study, Escuela Nueva methods have had “a significant positive impact on the peaceful social interaction of children.” 34


The CFS track record in improving inclusive school access and creating an inclusive school culture is an important contribution to peacebuilding. ‘Proactive inclusive’ or ‘inclusivity of belonging’ approaches resonate especially well with the emphasis within peacebuilding on having regard for cultural and contextual relevance and appropriateness (Bush and Saltarelli 2000). Developing a positive sense of belonging among children and young people is one of the ways to build their pro-social dispositions, such as self-esteem.

The linkage between low self-esteem and negative inter-ethnic attitudes and behaviours, including scapegoating, will be revisited in the discussion of self-esteem in subsection 4.3.4.2 .

When the Escuela Nueva project took place in the highly conflict-affected municipality of La Macarena, in 2008–2009, it specifically focused on strengthening student government. Inspired and motivated by children’s actions through the student governments, community members organized themselves into ‘parental governments’ that became catalytic in strengthening social ties within the community.35

Positive change effected by the Escuela Nueva Learning Circles include: a 20 per cent improvement in self-esteem; development of children’s disposition to solve conflicts peacefully and to cooperate and respect each other; and children becoming more responsible and developing a greater sense of belonging.36

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Cooperative learning, peer-to-peer

learning; horizontal relationship between teacher and students; developing independent thinking; nurturing self-efficacyandself-esteem;enhancingschoolandcommunity relationships; creating platforms (e.g., student government) for student action in school and community; and addressing emotional needs such as a positive sense of identity and of belonging, effectiveness and control, and independence and autonomy.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Initially operating at the micro-systemic level in a restricted number of schools, the initiative has enjoyed exponential growth. It is now embedded in and reinforced at the macro-systemic level as an aspect of national culture and in national policy and practice, and it has led to innovative exo-systemic (global-level) peacebuilding developments.

CSF dimension (school level)

Peacebuilding gap

Peacebuilding latent

Peacebuilding resonant

School Environment & Ethos

Section 4.2 Summary table

School physical environment

Non-violent school culture

Inclusive school culture


4.3 Curriculum, teaching and learning

4.3.1 Curriculum content [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

As touched upon in section 2, curriculum proposals in child-friendly guidance and evaluation literature are few in number and little elaborated. The CFS manual (UNICEF 2009a) identifies ‘children’s rights, human rights and peace education’ as important curriculum components. It proposes a ‘skills-building curriculum’ that should include “critical information on nutrition and health, water and sanitation, environmental education for sustainable development, climate change adaptation and ways to deal with HIV and AIDS” – a curriculum that also has students participate in “peace education within a non-discriminatory culture” (5:29).

According to the CFS manual, when life skills curricula include human rights, they should be directed at understanding the nature of basic rights, applying human rights standards to real situations, and “grappling with dilemmas presented when people’s rights come into conflict.” Non-discriminatory life skills curricula, the manual avers, should challenge stereotypes of groups of people, build appreciation of difference, work against stigmatization and ostracism of groups and “explore issues of discrimination and the denial of human rights in the context of underlying power structures that create inequality within society.” Life skills for peace education include conflict avoidance, mediation and resolution, challenging enemy images, cooperation, competition and issues of trust in interpersonal relations, and interpersonal violence such as child abuse, bullying and harassment. Although there is a less-than-wholehearted and comprehensive endorsement of a peace dimension in the manual – “peace-building and conflict resolution skills can be relevant and useful when such resources as water, food and household energy are scarce” – there is much in its pages that resonates with the ambitions of peacebuilding education (UNICEF 2009a, 5:30).

It is a challenge, however, to locate CFE documentation that paints in the detail of curriculum content that might fall under each of these important broad headings. The approach is one of leaving content specifics to be developed at the ground level, according to local context and needs, perhaps exploiting any ‘local content’ element in national curricula as now being mandated by an increasing number of national governments (Shaeffer 2013). The problem often lies in the lack of local teacher and advisory capacity to undertake ground-level curriculum development, adding to the tendency for child-friendly schools to overemphasize “the easy and the visible (i.e. physical) dimensions of CFS” (66) rather than the more complex, uphill challenges posed by curriculum development and pedagogic renewal.

In contrast, conflict-sensitive and peacebuilding curriculum proposals are marked by a greater degree of topic and skills specificity. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE 2013) identifies peace-related curricula as including such cross-cutting topics and skills as critical thinking, human rights, citizenship education, non-violence, conflict prevention and resolution – all in culturally, socially and linguistically relevant forms and representing the perspectives and experiences of both genders. The Global Education Cluster (2012a) identifies the following content and skills areas for a curriculum for building peace:

• Interpersonal and social/emotional skills, including interpersonal communication and cooperation, refusal skills, negotiation and mediation, skills, and valuing of social cohesion and inclusion.

• Inter-group reconciliation and peacebuilding, with a strong ‘futures’ orientation.


• Higher-level thinking skills, including analysing and understanding peace and conflict dynamics, non-violent alternatives and creative thinking.

• Citizenship knowledge and skills, including the principles and processes of democratic citizenship and participation, non-discriminatory decision making and awareness of the marginalized.

• Understanding of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Kotite (2012) proposes the following topics as essential for a peace-promoting curriculum:

• Human rights education.

• Democratic principles, including participation in decision making and respect for the rights and interests of minorities, indigenous people, disadvantaged and unpopular groups.

• The rule of law, understanding of the norms and processes of a secure society with peaceful settlement of dispute, redress for abuse and accountability.

• Education for cultural diversity.

• Disarmament education.

Margaret Sinclair (2010, 288–292) asks whether there are education interventions that “can reduce the chances that school leavers will become active supporters of civil conflicts and atrocities, including attacks on education.” Focusing on curriculum and pedagogic renewal, she draws together examples of programmes with an effective track record in “building protection through curriculum renewal.” They include a programme for children age 14 and over, exploring the principles of humanitarian law; elementary- and secondary-level programmes teaching the skills and values of conflict resolution, conflict reduction and peer mediation; programmes exploring life experiences through a human rights lens; and through-the-grades programmes in citizenship education – citizenship “being a concept not so laden with the unpalatable connotations that some governments attach to ‘peace’ or ‘human rights’.”

In the case of the Peace Education Programme in Kenya (see box 3, above), developed in response to the post-election violence of 2007–2008, nurturing values of coexistence, respect for human dignity and appreciation of diversity – as well as developing skills of critical and creative thinking, problem solving and non-violent conflict resolution – form a critical part of the curriculum. In Kyrgyzstan, the Grade 9 post-conflict civic education course focuses on causes of conflict and peaceful conflict resolution methods such as dialogue, mediation and democratic engagement (see synoptic case study 3). In post-conflict Liberia (see box 5), where perpetrators of violence during the civil war and victims of violence now live side-by-side and, in some cases attend the same schools and sit in the same classrooms, teaching knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours for peaceful coexistence has become a priority of the Center for Peace Education (2013).



The Liberian civil war broke out in 1989 and ended with a peace agreement between disputants in 2003 signed in Accra, Ghana. The war was characterized by brutal ethnic factionalism and fighting as armed groups split along ethnic lines. Fourteen years of war devastated the people and infrastructure of the country. Thousands of children were used as child soldiers, while others witnessed the death and torture of family members or were themselves abused or tortured. Thousands of Liberians went into exile or were internally displaced, and it is estimated that more than 200,000 died of the direct and indirect effects of war. While a large peacekeeping mission (the United Nations Mission in Liberia) has been in place since 2003 to maintain and consolidate the peace – and the Accra Peace Agreement called for the promotion of human rights education and for ex-combatants to be afforded the opportunity for education and training as part of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process – tensions remain high and change remains stubbornly hard to achieve.37

Recognizing the need for healing and reconciliation in classrooms attended by students who has been child soldiers, displaced, physically disabled or survivors of sexual assault, the Center for Peace Education (CPE) was established in Monrovia in 2009 to promote “a non-violent culture by imbuing students with the skills, knowledge and attitudes needed to coexist peacefully.” It began by conducting baseline research into student attitudes in 14 junior and senior high schools, using questionnaires and focus groups. The survey revealed that the students were “more receptive to violent behavior than non-violent ways of life. Students hail warlords as role models.” It also found that students lacked “the prerequisite skills to diagnose the potential for conflict or resolve it peacefully when it arises.” 38

Based on the survey analysis, CPE developed a one-year peace education curriculum that was

subsequently piloted in seven elementary, junior and senior high schools. The lessons were “designed and taught in ways that un-teach violent behavior using a therapeutic process of oral discussion, drama, dance, songs, and written expression.”39 After three years, the CPE programme was reaching more than 2,000 students while also offering peer mediation training to youth unable to access schooling. “By engaging former combatants, refugees, and victims, and addressing the reality that many elements of the recent conflict and ongoing culture of misunderstanding are perpetuated on Liberian school campuses,” the programme aims to help youth “understand and address the elements of a peaceful society, in contrast to the forces that promulgate violent conflict.”40 CPE recruits its volunteer educators from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, giving them training in conflict resolution, peer mediation and non-violence according to Liberian indigenous methodologies.41


CPE provides strong testimony of the efficacy of the programme. Its founder attests to significant decreases in levels of student verbal abuse and violence in participating schools, coupled with a sharp decrease in the numbers of students suspended or expelled.42 Teachers and students also attest to reductions in violent behaviours. “The violence that used to be on this campus is no more,” said one student. “Everybody here is like a peace-maker,” said another.43 One teacher reflected: “Students are becoming more aware of their principles and values. The impact is not just confined within the gates of our school, but even more importantly our students are reaching out into the local communities and settling disputes, which in most cases without their intervention would have led to violent conflict.”44

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Employing student-centred interactive learning; offering socio-emotional learning opportunities; creating a protective and enabling

Box 5. Liberia: ‘Un-Teaching’ Violent Behaviour


schoolpeaceculture;developingtheconfidenceand skills for proactive engagement in school and community; and addressing emotional needs such as positive belonging and effectiveness and control.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: An initiative more or less restricted to the microcosm of

a non-governmental organization and limited number of schools, with some impact within surrounding communities but so far lacking take-up at the macro-systemic level of national policy and governance – thereby raising questions as to its sustainability.

Although CFE theory carries the seeds of the idea that curricula should examine the underlying power structures that foment inequality, it is peacebuilding education (as mentioned in 3.2.2) that espouses a more ‘explicitly political’ approach addressing and seeking to challenge and change fundamental drivers of injustice, inequality and conflict in pursuit of ‘positive peace’. Education for peacebuilding, according to Salm and Shubert (2012), should go beyond conflict sensitivity and build positive peace through, among other things, addressing conflict drivers – a point reinforced by UNICEF (2012d). Peacebuilding, then, brings conflict analysis into the curriculum and learning processes, prompting enquiry into power relations and the structural and institutional factors fuelling conflict (UNICEF 2011d).

It may well be that the CFS emphasis on life skills education offers one of the most fruitful avenues for embedding peacebuilding in the curriculum of the child-friendly school. It is noteworthy that UNICEF is advocating ‘Life Skills Based Education for Violence Prevention and Peace Building’ as a means of bringing about “behavioural change that will enable children, youth and adults to: prevent conflict and violence, both overt and structural; resolve conflict peacefully; and create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, national or international level.” In this approach, life skills, taken singly or in combination, can help students identify and implement peaceful solutions for resolving conflict; identify and avoid dangerous situations; evaluate violent solutions depicted as successful in the media; resist pressure from peers and adults to use violent behaviour; become a mediator and calm disputants; help prevent crime in their communities; and reduce prejudice and increase tolerance for diversity (UNICEF 2012g).

One gap in both peacebuilding and child-friendly education is the lack of clear articulation of grade-appropriate themes and topics, as well as grade-by-grade knowledge, skills and attitudinal/dispositional learning outcomes. There is no sense of what a systematic approach to peacebuilding through the grade levels would look like. As discussed earlier (see 2.3), child-friendly education is now spreading into both early childhood and secondary education. This process is likely to prompt efforts to develop a cumulative, dovetailed succession of desired learning outcomes and to delineate a succession of themes and topics to help deliver those outcomes. Taking child-friendly education into the secondary level will also speak to deepening, elaborating and consolidating curriculum content, something that needs to happen if the child-friendly classroom is to become an arena for peacebuilding.

It is the topic specificity of peacebuilding education as set out in this section that, given sensitive facilitation and repeated exposure, carries the potential to more rigorously engage learners with notions of ‘active bystandership’ and ‘constructive patriotism’ while satisfying emotional needs such as security, sense of identity and belonging, and effectiveness and control.


4.3.2 Plural and parallel citizenship education [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

Citizenship and citizenship education are not terms that figure prominently in the literature of child-friendly education. There are but two case study sidebar mentions in the CFS manual (UNICEF, 2009a, 5:28, 6:13) with no mentions in the main text. However, child-friendly principles, particularly inclusiveness and democratic participation, are rich in active citizenship potential.

‘Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Report’ (UNICEF 2009b) confirms that, across the six countries participating in the research – Guyana, Nicaragua, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa and Thailand – schools implementing the child-friendly approach make committed efforts to be inclusive, reaching out to children in the community to try to engage them and creating a physically and emotionally safe climate. The report notes that, especially where there are high levels of family and community participation coupled with a child-centred pedagogy, students feel “safer, supported and engaged” (18). Family and community participation together with the use of child-centred pedagogic approaches both enshrine and mirror democratic citizenship values and processes. As regards the principle of democratic participation, the report finds high levels of student and parent involvement in many, but not all, schools across the six countries. It also reports, on the increasing evidence of formal roles for students in decision making, with students’ self-esteem increasing through engagement and their commitment to school reinforced through parental and community engagement. Thus, even if it is not named as such, active citizenship is being practised and ‘role modelled’.

What is so far not evident in child-friendly schooling, and what is very important from a post-conflict peacebuilding perspective, is a studied and structured approach towards developing a new concept of citizenship that encompasses plural and parallel identities – a concept that includes but does not detract from national loyalty (Bush and Saltarelli 2000). The approach has been described as one of ‘state building’, securing social cohesion while acknowledging, respecting and celebrating difference and diversity, as against ‘nation building’, seeking unity around one common identity (UNICEF 2011d).

Hence, while owning allegiance to their country, a citizen can draw his or her identity from and feel loyalty to a particular group while identifying with and feeling loyalty and solidarity towards the multi-ethnic and multi-faith community in which they find themselves as well as towards their region, bio-region and the planet, and/or those of similar interests, ideologies and orientations around the world. They can also feel loyalty to a set of values arising from the wider cluster of loyalties, values that can set them at odds with what groups to which they belong – including their own nation state – stand for. This is the constructive patriotism and active bystandership that were mentioned in subsection 3.2.2, the ability to hold, argue for and stand by an alternative view of what is in the collective best interests of the nation, allied with a willingness to speak out against doing harm, cruelty and injustice done to anyone (Selby 1994; Staub 2005)

The CFS primary-level curriculum in Macedonia – where child-friendly education has an additional ‘respect for children’s rights and multiculturalism’ dimension – brushes against the plural and parallel citizenship approach. First, students across the curriculum learn about the cultural and religious heritage of all ethnic communities represented in Macedonia. Second, life skills-based education has become a new subject that is compulsory for all five grades of primary school and focuses on, among other things, acceptance of similarities and differences, non-discrimination, cooperation and withstanding social pressures (UNICEF 2009c).


The ‘Learning from the Past: Building the Future’ programme in Rwanda (box 6) helps to surface and address inter-ethnic tensions among the younger generations who do not remember the genocide but who have been acculturated into sublimating their ethnicity in the post-genocide period, though they nonetheless remain influenced by the prejudices of older generations. Open dialogue and critical exploration of the country’s history are vehicles for recognizing ethnic identity while developing a mindset and value system of plural and parallel citizenship identity.


In April 1994 Rwandan ethnic tensions between a Hutu majority and Tutsi minority escalated into one of the worst manifestations of ethnic violence in history. Over the course of 100 days of genocidal mass slaughter, Hutu soldiers and militias killed at least 800,000 Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus. The 18th anniversary of the genocide was observed in April 2012 under the theme “learning from history to shape a bright future.”45

This theme is echoed in the Learning from the Past; Building the Future programme being offered to Rwandan children and youth by the Kigali Memorial Centre. Opened in April 2004, the centre is built on a site where 250,000 genocide victims are buried. In partnership with the Ministry of Education and the National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation, an important part of its remit is to provide educational programmes about the genocide for schoolchildren as a contribution to the national civic education curriculum.46

For the most part, students for whom the programme is intended do not remember the genocide. By raising the issue of ethnicity, the programme may be uncomfortable for Rwandans who have been encouraged in the name of reconciliation to “leave behind their divisive ethnic identities and think of themselves simply as Rwandans.” At the outset of the workshop, students are asked to share instances of conflict at school caused by ethnicity. This is done in response to “worrying signs” that children and youth are “perpetuating the ethnic prejudices of their

parents.” According to an education officer of the centre, “There are no open fights in schools, but a lot of whispering behind one’s back, a lot of writing on the walls and anonymous letters.”47

As Dr. James Smith, CEO of the centre’s UK-based partner organization, the Aegis Trust, puts it, “There are resentments and ideologies that children learn from their parents and wider communities, and these pose a threat to long-term stability and the economic and social development of the country.”48 The programme aims to stem the passing on of prejudices to post-genocide generations by demonstrating how hatred and prejudice can lead to mass violence and why reconciliation is key to a stable and peaceful future.

During the morning workshops, students experience role-play and storytelling, and discuss and solve problems as they explore their country’s history. Empathetic understanding and developing critical thinking and leadership skills are intended learning outcomes. In the afternoon, students visit the Kigali Memorial Centre’s permanent exhibition that has sections on the roots of the genocide, the genocide itself and its aftermath, including impacts on women and children, and the rebuilding of Rwandan society.49 The visit is followed by a ‘debriefing’ session. Some 11,000 students, aged 15–24, had attended the programme as of March 2013, and a travelling exhibition has been created for better outreach beyond the Kigali area and to bring the programme to a larger student population.50

Box 6. Rwanda: Learning from the Past: Building the Future

u


4.3.3 Negotiated curriculum [peacebuilding latent]

If children are to have a say in all matters affecting them (CRC, article 12), then that would suggest that they should have a say in shaping the curriculum they are to encounter. Child-friendly education has embraced this idea as aligning with the child-friendly principle of democratic participation. The CFS manual asserts: “It is only through such democratic participation that child friendly schools can claim to be fulfilling children’s right to education. [It] is simply a reaffirmation of good curriculum design principles which promote ‘negotiation’ of the curriculum by different stakeholders, including children” (UNICEF 2009a, 2:10). But a drawing back from the principle of child-negotiated curriculum then follows with caveats concerning the “legitimate roles of different stakeholders,” the need for “objective expertise” and the dangers of diluting the curriculum credibility that stems from the application of academic and professional rigour (2:11): “Child-centered curriculum planning and development” (6: 28), i.e., by adults, tends not to translate in any substantive and thoroughgoing way into “child-involved curriculum planning and development.”

While recognizing these concerns, from both a child rights and peacebuilding perspective, the question needs to be asked as to what degree of curriculum democracy – for children but also for parents and adult community members – is attainable. There are regular references in CFS guidance literature such as to encouraging “the involvement, cooperation and participation of children, teachers, school heads and parents in the reform process” (UNICEF 2009a, 5:5).

At the community level, a regularly meeting curriculum forum – which comprises adult, youth and child members representing diverse sections of the local population and deliberating on formal and non-formal local-based curriculum programing and the learning needs of children and the community – might be considered in conflict-affected contexts. The forum might also fulfil a curriculum monitoring function while offering practical guidance and resource support for ‘children-in-community’ projects and initiatives (see 4.4.2). Young people who have recently graduated from a child-friendly school might play a pivotal enabling role within such a forum by bridging the


An impact analysis of the programme reports a “dramatic positive effect” on students’ attitudes and behaviours, with a spill-over effect beyond the attendees to the whole school. In addition, “there was greater empathy with students from other ethnic groups and people in need, material support for poor survivors (i.e. of the genocide), and anti-genocide clubs were established.”51

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Surfacing and addressing inter-ethnic tensions through open dialogue; recognizing coexistent, multiple identities; facing history for purposes of reconciliation, social cohesion and

solidarity; developing empathy; developing critical thinkingandactiveleadershipskills;reflectingonnecessary attitudes and behaviours for a peaceful future; and addressing the emotional need for a positive sense of identity and comprehension of reality.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Essentially an initiative within the exo-system, with positive spin-offs at the microcosmic level of participating schools. The programme is recognized as a contribution to the national civic education programme but is held back from having macro-systemic impact because of geographical and resource constraints.


adult and child worlds, role modelling democratic practice, and ensuring that the voices of child representatives are listened to (Kotite 2012). In addition, a school-level platform enabling children to feed in curriculum proposals to the principal and teachers and to the community forum would strengthen curriculum democracy. This could be a function of the student council or parliament (see 4.4.1).

In post-conflict Nepal, a multi-stakeholder consultative group involving marginalized groups offers an example of curriculum negotiation at the national level. In the process of integrating peace, human rights and civic education into the formal curriculum, the multi-stakeholder consultative group provided stories, case studies and cultural, ethnic and linguistic input into the revision of teaching materials and textbooks. The group also reviewed materials composed by a curriculum-writing group to ensure they accurately reflected the diverse perspectives and experiences of their respective communities (see synoptic case study 4).

It is important to recall that any mandated curriculum is no more than a framework and that there is curriculum detail that, in the name of democracy and building community cohesion, can be negotiated at the community, school and/or classroom level. The assured, textbook-liberated classroom teacher can encourage children to negotiate the specific enquiries they will make, the sub-topics they will explore, the stories they want to hear from diverse community members, and the choice of media they will use to express and share their learning. Mention is made in the Global Evaluation Report (UNICEF 2009b, 97) of students in child-friendly schools suggesting class activities to their teachers.

Dovetailing with the idea of negotiated curriculum is that of structured and periodic evaluation of the learning programme and process by the children. While there is frequent reference of a general kind in child-friendly literature to child participation in decision making and to children being actively involved in their education’ (see, for instance, UNICEF 2009b, 80–81), periodic age-appropriate opportunities for children in the classroom to express their ideas, feelings, wishes and expectations concerning what they are learning and how they are learning it do not seem to be much availed of. The existence of such micro-evaluation moments not only signals that democracy runs deep but allows for what is uncovered to feed into – and to be seen to feed into – the teacher’s subsequent lesson development.

4.3.4 Child-centred learning [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

The child-friendly pedagogic model is one of child-centred learning, a concept bringing together the best interests of the child and the principles of child-centredness and democratic participation. Using peace education terminology, the approach signals a decisive shift away from vertical, top-down knowledge transmission to learning with a horizontal dynamic marked by the exchange of ideas, perceptions and perspectives between learners with the teacher facilitating the process of learning (Cabezudo and Haavelsrud 2013).

The CFS Global Evaluation Reports suggest that teachers are using child-centred pedagogies to good effect, and country case studies in the reports support this conclusion. The CFS experience in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example, is that use of child-centred pedagogy fostered self-expression and increased self-esteem (UNICEF 2010a). In the State of Palestine, the shift to a child-friendly pedagogy led to greater inter-student collaboration (UNICEF 2011b). However, the 2009 Global Evaluation Report notes that teachers in many contexts tend to fall back on traditional forms of instruction (UNICEF 2009b), and the size of classes was subsequently cited as a crucial issue in this regard (UNICEF 2010b).


The Global Evaluation Reports fall short of mapping the variety of child-centred pedagogies being employed, but the impression is that, for the most part, a narrow band of learning approaches is being availed of. In CFS literature there is only limited reference to:

• Enquiry learning: students conducting interviews, undertaking community surveys, researching case studies and use of Internet searching.

• Experiential learning: including learning through experience ‘out in the field’ as well as through surrogate experiences of film, games, role-playing, simulation exercises and other purposefully contrived classroom learning devices.

• Action learning: students engaged in community or local environmental change initiatives from their classroom base, using, for instance, poster campaigns, street theatre, presentations or social media.

• ‘Imaginal’ learning: students using their imagination to, for instance, ‘feel inside’ events in the past or events happening elsewhere or to look at the world through others’ eyes, or to envision positive, negative and alternative future scenarios.

Each of the above has significant potential for enriching child-centred pedagogy while contributing to ‘whole child’ participatory and action-oriented learning in post-conflict contexts. In peacebuilding terms, such pedagogies, suitably juxtaposed and frequently returned to, have a key contribution to make in opening new ways of seeing and envisioning the world, helping learners transcend taken-for-granted realities, helping them develop a sense of agency and effectiveness, and building a shared history and common memory as a learning group of responding to diverse and powerful learning stimuli and challenges (see endnote 4 on contact theorization).

Escuela Nueva, the interactive and participatory learning approach followed in schools in Colombia, organically links curriculum to school democracy and provides a model of sustained, joined-up child-centred pedagogy (see box 4). In northern Uganda, the child-friendly participatory tools used for a 2008 Save the Children evaluation of child involvement in school peace clubs and community associations in a conflict-affected context provide inspirational evidence of the potential of implementing a richer smorgasbord of child-centred learning approaches (see box 16).

Below we discuss at greater length four pedagogic elements more or less missing from child-friendly learning discussion: cooperative learning, socio-emotional learning, critical media literacy learning and future-oriented learning. Each, we submit, has a significant place within a comprehensive post-conflict pedagogy for building peace.

4.3.4.1 Cooperative learning [peacebuilding latent]

Scattered through the guidance and evaluation literature on child-friendly education are occasional unelaborated references to cooperative learning as an element within a child-centred pedagogy. There are, for example, references to collaborative learning among students (UNICEF 2009b), open learning environments characterized by group cooperation (UNICEF 2009a), and active, cooperative, participatory and democratic learning methods (Shaeffer 2013; UNICEF 2012f). Juxtaposed with calls for individualized instruction appropriate to each child (UNICEF 2012f), these reference leave to chance how the teacher interprets the call to facilitate cooperation in the classroom.


Having students work in groups is often taken to be cooperative learning, but there is “nothing magical about putting students in groups” (Johnson and Johnson, undated, 10). Placing children in groups neither means they will cooperate nor derive particular learning or psychosocial benefits from their interactions. For that to happen, conditions of ‘positive interdependence’ need to be established in which group members perceive that they cannot achieve the task they have been set without relying on each other’s contribution, with the correlative understanding that no one succeeds unless everyone in the group succeeds (Johnson and Johnson 1999, 2005).

Positive interdependence gives rise to forms of synergistic interaction in which group members promote each other’s efforts to achieve the learning goal, members invest positive psychological energy in each other’s actions and in the group as a whole, and a culture of substitutability obtains in which group members readily substitute for each other and there is openness to being influenced by others in the group. Outcomes of positive interdependence have been identified as: joint success in meeting a mutual goal, with the sense of achievement fairly distributed across groups; positive and supportive relations between diverse parties; psychological well-being, with a joint sense of efficacy and self-esteem; and the development of a superordinate sense of identity, uniting diverse members of the group (Johnson and Johnson 2005). Cooperative learning is therefore well placed to meet the emotional need for effectiveness and control, security and a positive sense of belonging.

Cooperative learning can encompass formal activities such as students working together for several weeks on a project or survey; informal, e.g., students working in temporary ad hoc groups for debriefing or discussion; or of the pastoral or ‘base group’ variety, that is, long-term, stable, heterogeneous peer groups in which members offer each other mutual care and support in furthering their academic and social learning progress.

Bringing closure to any cooperative learning activity involves processing how well the group and the individuals forming the group have functioned in their working relationship. It also requires identifying ways of improving the quality of their cooperation individually and collectively, and calls for celebrating everyone’s success (Johnson and Johnson undated, 3). The approach necessarily entails recurrent practising of a range of key child-friendly life and social skills – such as listening, decision making, consensus building, conflict resolution, negotiation and debriefing skills – as well as oral and written communication skills.

Cooperative learning is distinguished from individualistic learning, where the individual child’s achievement of a task is unrelated to the achievements of her or his peers, and from competitive learning, where a child perceives that she or he can only succeed if peers achieve less. While cooperative learning promotes positive interaction, individualistic learning is marked by the absence of interaction and competitive learning is characterized by potentially oppositional or obstructionist interaction (Johnson and Johnson undated).

There is a strong case for earmarking cooperative learning as a key child-friendly pedagogy. As a peacebuilding education strategy in post-conflict contexts, it is replete with potential:

It is within cooperative learning groups that the personal relationships and emotional support are developed that allow for candid conversations about the conflict previous to the peace agreement. These candid conversations involve the honest and detailed sharing of past experiences, pain and insights involved in the healing of past traumas. Even in extreme, seemingly intractable conflicts, such candid conversations allow for reconciliation, forgiveness, and the giving up of an identity as a combatant or victim (Johnson and Johnson 2005, 286).


Thus, classrooms become spaces for ongoing immersion in an ethic of virtuous motivation, together with regularly reinforced practice in constructively micro-managing conflict and disagreement. And research studies point to significant attitudinal and behavioural gains. Positive attitudes and interpersonal attraction develop between children of different ethnic groups in the light of sustained cooperative learning immersion. Instances of inter-ethnic and interracial tension decrease (Pike and Selby 1988, 54–56).

Cooperation around what is contested and controversial has particular potency. It appears that there are especially significant cognitive and emotional gains to be had from cooperative learning formats in which students, randomly placed in heterogeneous groups, engage in ‘constructive controversy’. This involves negotiating their way through ‘disputed passages’ of learning by each researching and advocating a particular position, engaging in spirited discussion as they respond critically to each other, taking on and arguing for reverse perspectives, negotiating an agreed synthesis and, finally, reviewing the quality of group functioning. Among the benefits: “The effective discussion of difficult issues promotes the development of moral courage and the ability to face opposition and argue against other points of view. It enhances the willingness to speak out and act in support of important values in the face of opposition” (Johnson and Johnson 2005, 287–288). There are then very strong links between cooperative learning and learning that fosters the skills and dispositions of active bystandership and constructive patriotism.

4.3.4.2 Socio-emotional learning [peacebuilding latent]

Under its principle of protection, child-friendly education places considerable emphasis on the psychosocial (emotional, psychological) and physical well-being of children with a view to protecting them from verbal and emotional abuse and the trauma of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, ethnic prejudice, and both teacher and peer intrusiveness. Particular attention is also paid to securing and maintaining ‘child-friendly spaces’ for those in early childhood and beyond who are caught up in humanitarian emergency (UNICEF 2009a).

Less visible is guidance on the inclusion of emotional learning as a feature of a child-centred pedagogy within formal curricula. While the child-friendly school provides psychosocial support through its overall operations and ethos, systematic, intentionally structured emotional support through the learning process is less in evidence. The CFS Global Evaluation Report (UNICEF 2009b) identifies the lack of intentional and systematic ‘Social Emotional Learning’ (SEL) as a key finding (xi, 41) – and concludes that it “can enhance both CFS immediate goals as well as long-term life goals. SEL helps students stay in school and participate in child-centred instruction (e.g., cooperative learning), promotes democratic participation (e.g., culturally-appropriate assertiveness and interpersonal competence), and contributes to a more civil and less violent school climate.” In addition, SEL can make a contribution to fostering active citizenship (134).

Emotional, or ‘affective’, learning involves giving students structured opportunities to share feelings, hopes and fears, and emotional experiences; provides outlets for sharing emotional responses to learning experiences; and encompasses empathetic exercises (‘How might it feel to be in that situation? ‘How do you think the world looks through their eyes?’) as well as opportunities to express feelings through multiple media such as dance, music, art or body sculpture (Selby and Kagawa 2014, 80).

Such learning approaches can be very powerful for those encountering exclusion, marginalization, oppression, and other manifestations of direct and structural violence. As such, they require extremely sensitive, calibrated and nuanced facilitation. This can be especially hard for teachers


and other facilitators (including children and youth) who have experienced violence at first hand and are themselves in need of psychosocial support (INEE 2013, 30). Furthermore, “teachers may also need help with recovery as well as guidance on how education can be adopted to support the healing process” (INEE 2010, 54).

It is important to remember that the teacher’s or facilitator’s role is not to conduct therapy, which requires specialist training and skills. What teachers and other facilitators can do is to “provide psychosocial support to learners by adapting the way they interact with learners, creating a safe and supportive environment in which learners may express their emotions and experiences, and by including specific structured psychosocial activities in the teaching/learning process” (IASC 2007, 152–153). Structured emotional learning in the classroom has an important role to play in addressing basic emotional needs (see 3.2.2) and fulfil a catalytic role in peacebuilding efforts at school, with the caveat that its facilitation requires training that must involve at least an element of psychosocial healing, especially in conflict-affected contexts.

The UNICEF ‘Return to Happiness’ programme (see synoptic case study 5), launched in Colombia in 1996, provided urgent mass psychosocial support to children affected by civil war, with adolescent volunteers acting as agents of psychosocial recovery. The volunteers were trained in play therapy and taught how to nurture trust and hope among younger children through games, art, puppetry, song and storytelling. They were supported by community members who provided them with a ‘knapsack of dreams’ containing handmade materials such as rag dolls, puppets, wooden toys and books to use in their psychosocial support work (UNICEF 2004b). The ‘We Care’ programme in the State of Palestine (see synoptic case study 6) launched during the 2000–2003 intifada, similarly involved peer counselling, in this case by trained university students operating in 58 secondary schools. They engaged the school students in trust building, open discussion, confidence and self-esteem building as well as skills building for constructive engagement in community development projects (UNICEF 2004a).

Like emotional learning, self-esteem building and protection are generally located outside of curriculum, teaching and learning in child-friendly theory. In the CFS manual (UNICEF 2009a), there are seven references to self-esteem. It is described as being cultivated by factors that include parental support and a positive school climate, community participation and heightened cultural identity, teacher training in counselling, and youth contributing to social dialogue – and it is reported as being damaged by bullying. Additionally, there are two references to self-esteem building as an element within life skills learning.

From a peacebuilding perspective, the curricular dimensions of building self-esteem need to be more prominent in CFS thinking. Self-esteem has been defined as the learners’ evaluation of the discrepancy between self-image (what a person sees herself or himself as being) and the ideal self (what they would like to be). A strong case, based on research findings, can be made for attending to self-esteem building within life skills and other learning programmes. Self-esteem, it is suggested, correlates with achievement. The child enjoying high self-esteem, in which the gap between self-image and the notion of ideal self is narrow, is likely to be more academically (and socially) confident and eager for new learning challenges. On the other hand, the child with low self-esteem, in which the gap between self-image and the notion of ideal self is considerable, will tend to shy away from social and learning opportunities in the expectation of failure and humiliation (Pike and Selby 1999).

The student with high self-esteem will also probably be more altruistic and positive towards others, while negative self-esteem is likely to be displaced into negative attitudes towards others


– especially those who are different. An inclination to scapegoat can result. Positive self-esteem has also been correlated with indicators of pro-social adjustment such as caring, generosity and sharing, with commitment to democratic values and processes – including having the moral courage to take a stand and speak out against injustice – and to be proactive when challenged by a crisis (Pike and Selby 1999). The self-esteeming child, in short, is more likely to be a constructive patriot and active bystander (Davies 2009; Staub 2005). According to its own lights, but also in terms of making a more robust contribution to peacebuilding, there is a strong case for more structured and systematic attention to activities that build self-esteem in CFS curricula, teaching and learning.

The case studies of Escuela Nueva (box 4) and Rwanda (box 6) both incorporate examples of structured self-esteem building. The Butterfly Peace Garden initiative, located in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, also focuses on building self-esteem within a systematic, holistic approach to socio-emotional learning (see synoptic case study 7). Traumatized children under age 12, half from the Tamil community and half from the Muslim community, participate in a nine-month programme aimed at helping them ‘rediscover’ themselves and become whole again as they map out a new future. To nourish the process of personal transformation, the children are encouraged to express themselves through a ‘palette’ of creative activities and media, and engage in body-mind relational processes such as yoga. One-to-one counselling is also offered (Butterfly Peace Garden 2011). In another example, Help the Afghan Children’s Peace Education programme (box 7) offers systematic support to children, with a pronounced accent on working through trauma and building confidence and self-esteem, along with developing conflict-resolution and mediation skills.


Afghan children have been subjected to a cycle of violence for more than 30 years. The majority of them have had a prolonged exposure to violence, including corporal punishment at school and violence in the home. Exposure to violence has impacted their ability to learn and inhibited their development of “emotional awareness, self-esteem, empathy, and active problem-solving.” Feeling threatened and victimized, children, especially boys, accept violence as a norm.52

In order to help Afghan children reject violence and exercise non-violent ways of living, Help the Afghan Children (HTAC), a non-profit, non-partisan charitable organization founded in 1993, launched a formal peace education programme for schools in 2002. Over 10 years, the initiative has reached more than 54,000 students, at 54 schools in five provinces.53

The programme, which is targeted to reach students in Grades 7 and 8, is a psychosocial programme with the following six objectives:

1. Helping children better cope with emotional trauma arising from previous and current exposure to violence.

2. Helping children understand the basic concepts of peaceful living, e.g., non-violent conflict resolution.

3. Helping children accept and respect individual, religious, ethnic and gender differences.

4. Training teachers to be role models for peace education principles.

5. Helping children apply what they have learned to real-life situations.

6. Working with parents and local communities to ensure support for and reinforcement of peace education principles at home.

Box 7. Afghanistan: Help the Afghan Children’s Peace Education Programme


The programme has a number of unique characteristics. Its peace education curriculum is built around ‘Journey of Peace’, an original, illustrated, trilingual (Dari, Pashto, English) series of storybooks. They are realistic stories of Afghan children and families handling hardship, trauma and difficult feelings (anger, fear, sadness) and touching upon human qualities such as patience, sympathy, bravery, forgiveness and service to others. Students act out and model the lessons learned from the stories using hand puppets and mini-theatres. As part of this: “Aggressive students are often selected and given the role of mediators so they learn the valuable lessons and benefits of non-conflict problem solving. Shy, withdrawn students are sometimes asked to play the roles of more outspoken characters in order to improve their confidence and self-esteem.”54

Each participating school sets up a dedicated peace room or peace centre, a “welcoming, stimulating and safe” place “for students to learn, share their opinions and feelings, and engage in exercises that promote cooperation with others and problem solving.”55 In this new physical space, students sit around a big table for discussion, which is very different from the traditional classroom arrangement. Two trained teachers manage the peace room or centre at school, assisted by trained student peer mediators. The student mediators facilitate problem-resolving processes between students, using role-play (puppets and theatre) and mediation techniques.56

Teachers are offered an intensive five-day workshop. They learn about how to use the storybooks in an engaging way; key concepts, principles and approaches of peace education; how to model positive behaviour in and out of the classroom; non-violent conflict resolution techniques; and effective communication and advocacy skills. The programme establishes local community school committees consisting of community leaders, elders, parents, teachers and other citizens in support of peace education in the community. In addition, HTAC measures and evaluates shifts in students’ attitudes (by means of attitudinal surveys) and changes in behaviour using “a series of field-tested performance measures and goals where data on specific

observable behaviors is continuously tracked, recorded and reported.”57

Endorsed by the Afghanistan Ministry of Education in 2011, HTAC has been working to establish a national school-based peace education curriculum for Grades 7–12. After pilot testing and approval from the Ministry, it is to be introduced to about 4 million Afghan children throughout the country.58

Demonstrable change arising from this initiative

Teachers, administrators, parents and trained observers at the implementing schools report observable changes in students’ behaviours, especially among boys. In the first year alone, there was an up to 70 per cent observed reduction in aggressive behaviours such as fighting, bullying and harassment, and an up to 85 per cent observed increase in the percentage of students constantly modelling non-violent and positive behaviours. Chronic fighting and aggression between three competing ethnic groups of students in one province stopped, and the students developed friendships. Trained teachers stopped using corporal punishment altogether. Parents reported their children behaving in a more caring, responsible and cooperative manner at home.59

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Buildingself-esteemandconfidence;dealingwithdifficultemotions;buildingtrustandunderstanding across different ethnic groups; linking schools and communities; developing communication skills; developing values of ‘peaceful living’, caring and empathy; employing non-violent behaviours ineverydaylife;developingconflict-resolutionskills; employing student-led peer mediation to solve problems between students; creating a safe, dedicated physical space for meeting, learning and sharing about peace matters; and addressing the emotional need for security, effectiveness and control.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: A micro-system-level initiative happening in a

u


4.3.4.3 Critical media literacy [peacebuilding gap<>latent]

Arising from the inclusiveness principle, the CFS manual warns of the dangers of curriculum materials that negatively portray those of diverse backgrounds and calls for negative depictions and prejudicial material to be challenged “through supplementary pedagogical materials purchased by or developed by teachers and other experts engaged in promoting child-friendly models” (UNICEF 2009a, 6:22). Two reflections follow. First, the statement can be read as laying down an interim position – especially, perhaps, in resource-thin post-conflict learning contexts – until new, purpose-designed materials reflecting and confirming social inclusiveness can be made available according to a schedule that aligns with the national curriculum development cycle. Second, it is interesting that the challenge to biased materials is to come, according to the manual, from “teachers and other experts” but not it seems from children, an issue that will be picked up later in this section.

A common theme in conflict-sensitive education but also evident in peacebuilding education concerns the importance in fragile and tense post-conflict situations of reviewing and replacing texts and other learning materials that contain negative and stereotypical depictions of particular ethnic groups. Linked with this is the removal of biased, manipulative and divisive historical accounts slanted towards the dominant narrative (Sinclair 2010).

INEE (2013, 29) underscores the importance in conflict-affected contexts of curriculum reform that is “gradual, participatory, and informed by the conflict analysis” and, in its early stages, marked by discontinuance of biased materials. In an Education Above All policy review document (Sigsgaard 2012), textual auditing and replacement processes are elaborated, including: analysis of curriculum and textbooks to identify bias likely to generate conflict; the appointment of a curriculum and textbook revision technical team and a consultative group that represents civil society and marginalized groups; and renewal of textbook and other materials according to a five- to seven-year plan. The Global Education Cluster (2012a, 10) likewise proposes creating a curriculum and textbook working group “to review sensitive curriculum issues and textbooks, including for history.” The working group should include “men and women from all sides of any ethnic or religious conflict.”

It is not altogether clear what is to happen in the classroom during the time between discontinuing the old curriculum and making available the new. There is considerable overlap between the strategies of child-friendly education and conflict-sensitive and peacebuilding education regarding the provision of non-biased and non-discriminatory texts. The latter includes analysis of school texts as part of conflict analysis to a degree that has so far generally not happened in CFS situation analyses. The child-friendly approach, as referenced above, generally tends to place greater weight on the provision of supplementary and varied materials, perhaps in part prompted by the injunction in the CRC to “ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources” (article 17). What is missing is any elaboration of what children might contribute to the detection of bias and prejudice.

significantnumberofschoolswithsomecommunity(exo-systemic)impacts,finallyfoldedintonationalcurriculum development (macro-systemic level) but

with quality-control mechanisms for the period of expansion unclear.


There is only one direct reference to “critical thinking” in the CFS manual (UNICEF 2009a, 6: 1). Additional to that, there are references to elements of critical thinking falling under the heading of “protective aspects of the curriculum,” especially in the shape of life skills, human rights, peace and non-discriminatory education (6:29–30). One such element is that of having children confront stereotypes as they learn to understand, accept and appreciate difference and “learn to ask questions about the knowledge passed on to them by books, the media, adults and other children” (30).

This passing reference to the promotion of critical media literacy, a subset of critical thinking vital for active citizenship and democracy, needs to acquire rich peacebuilding resonance. A peace-promoting critical media literacy education involves the following objectives (after Pike and Selby 2000):

• Help learners understand that media (including textbooks) are carefully crafted constructions of reality, not reality itself.

• Help learners develop the knowledge, skills, confidence and critical dispositions required to interpret how media construct reality.

• Foster learners’ awareness of potentially negative cultural, social, economic and political effects and implications of media constructions, and of how media can be used to deflect critical scrutiny of taken-for-granted, unjust and inequitable social situations and trends.

• Develop learners’ ability to decode and deconstruct media, to see through devices and techniques used to ‘sell’ a message and to identify unspoken subtexts.

• Enable learners to ask about and interpret the motivations, including those arising from self-interest, of those who construct messages or on whose behalf they are constructed, and to be aware that media are often used to affirm dominant ideologies and to prop up the existing social order.

As written by Lynn Davies (2009, 192), “Extremism is founded on the notion that there is one right answer, truth or path, and that there are no alternatives,” and critical education offers an antidote rooted in the “principle of accepting multiple realities, feeling comfortable with ambiguity and searching for multiple truths.” On violent extremism (2013, 1), Davies notes:

Part of the problem is the lack of critical education, one that enables learners to deconstruct and challenge the myriad messages they receive. Teachers are particularly uncomfortable in encouraging learners to critique religious texts. Yet unless habits and skills are built to analyze messages – whether from the Internet, from the media, from political and religious leaders or from the sacred texts themselves, young people will be prey to voices of authority – not all benign. Schools have to take the risk of enabling learners to question such authority.

The inclination of child-friendly education to provide learners with multiple materials in order to counterbalance textbook messages accords with the ‘multiple realities’ stance of critical media literacy education. But that stance also throws into question an approach to textbook reform that simply replaces one text, conveying one take on reality, with a new text that conveys yet another unitary reality (however consensually arrived at) – unless the new text is constructed in such a way as to juxtapose, and hence build, critical awareness of different perspectives, viewpoints and world views.


It is worth recalling that Klein (1990), in her study of means of combatting racism in children’s literature and learning materials, posed the question of whether the goal is to ‘sanitize’ or ‘sensitize.’ It may be that once a post-conflict zone has become less combustible, judiciously selected passages of old texts might be employed to practise and develop critical media literacy skills.

Peacebuilding in the child-friendly classroom calls for the scrutiny of texts in whatever medium. For instance, the interrogation by children of the classroom text by seeking diverse community opinion on its validity; the analysis of what is common and what is different in accounts of the same historical event in a variety of media (including textbooks from different countries); comparing and contrasting newspaper accounts of current affairs; learning to discern and unpack how posters, cartoons and films achieve their impact; and brainstorming questions about the text and subtext (‘hidden messages’) of photographs (Pike and Selby 2000).

Critical media literacy is an essential competency of the constructive patriot and active bystander. In newly independent Slovenia, for example, media education became a formal part of the national curriculum in 1996, with a dedicated course for Grades 7, 8 and 9 and cross-curricular provision at other grade levels (see box 8). The core aim is to build critical media literacy skills. The Slovenian example was followed in other Balkan countries formed after the war-torn break-up of Yugoslavia. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, CFS teachers who had been trained in analysing gender bias helped their pupils develop critical media literacy skills by detecting gender bias in their history textbooks. Realizing that women were missing from the text, the children went on to counter the textbook by designing posters and displays of gender-equitable materials featuring women in Macedonian history, which they then used to sensitize the entire student body about the importance of gender awareness (UNICEF 2009c).


Slovenia achieved its independence from Yugoslavia in 1991. During the post-conflict period of nation building and transformation, media education was seen as a means of fostering active citizenship and democratic empowerment for social change. In 1996, media education became a formal part of the Slovenian curriculum from kindergarten through university level. It is defined as “a process of teaching about and with the media” providing the “ability to critically analyze media messages, and the recognition of the active roles that audiences play in making meaning from media messages.”60

For preschool children, 4–6 years old, media education is restricted to helping children develop understanding of the difference between fact and

fiction, advertisements and news, what is real and what is make-believe. In Grades 7, 8 and 9 in the primary school system, media education is an optional course of one hour per week, amounting to 35 hours per year. The Grade 7 focus is on print media. Students are taught about the function of the press in a democracy and the importance of exposure to diverse opinions in fostering engaged citizenship. The underlying aim is to help students understand that media create and construct the world, rather than reflect it, and that media messages are designed for social, political and economic purposes. The Grade 8 course explores the medium of radio as a vehicle for looking at such themes as violence, heroes and stereotypes in media. The Grade 9 course deals with television and the Internet, with students critically analysing and deconstructing media content and creating their own show in

Box 8. Slovenia: Media Education


conjunction with a local TV station. The optional programme enjoys good take-up and is popular among students who are attracted by its participatory, personal experience-based and hands-on learning approach, and real-life relevance.61

Elsewhere in the primary school curriculum, media education is mandated for integration in other subjects, including Slovenian language in Grades 5–9 and civic education and ethics in Grades 7–8. The same holds true at the secondary level, where media education is an obligatory component of such subjects as Slovenian language, sociology, psychology and the history of art.62


Research shows that reliance on integrating media education in other subjects has proved less than effective than providing a specific focus. Whether teachers of host subjects fulfil the goals of media education seems to come down to personal commitment. Without training, they lack familiarity with the goals and processes of media education, as well as guidance and support materials.63

On the other hand, research shows that the three-year programme in Grades 7, 8 and 9 is one of the most popular programmes in Slovenian primary schools. Most students see it as developing relevant knowledge and life skills for active citizenship in a media-saturated world64 : “They want to be prepared

for the mediated world.”65 The quality of teaching is also important. The Faculty of Social Sciences at Ljubljana University has for some years offered a media education course for intending teachers who want to teach the three-year primary programme. The course familiarizes students with media studies and relevant pedagogic skills.

Neighbouring post-socialist countries such as Croatia and Serbia followed the Slovenian media education initiative as they set about restructuring their school systems in line with democratic transition following the break-up of Yugoslavia.66

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Learning to decode and deconstruct media messages as fundamental to empowerment and democratic engagement; active hands-on, learning approaches to media literacy; developing media presentational skills and giving children a voice as they utilize media through their action learning; developing active bystandership; and addressing emotional needs such as interdependence, autonomy and a positive sense of identity.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: An initiative instigated at the macro level that has been successful as a primary-grade course but has fallen short of its wider ambitions due to lack of sustained and systematic support at the exo-systemic and micro-systemic levels.

The child-friendly principles of inclusiveness and democratic participation call for both critical media discernment and for learners to harness the power of the media to give voice to their own ideas, views and opinions in the public sphere. This creative aspect of media literacy will be explored as an aspect of student participation in the community in subsection 4.4.2.

4.3.4.4 Futures-oriented learning [peacebuilding gap]

It would seem an essential component of child-centred curriculum and pedagogy that children be afforded learning opportunities to reflect upon and express their hopes, dreams, concerns, fears and expectations for the future at all levels, personal through global. We find, however, that a ‘futures’ learning orientation is absent from CFE theory and practice and is given relatively little attention in peacebuilding education discourse. In the collection of post-conflict case studies featured in this review, only the northern Uganda case study (see box 16) and synoptic case study


7, on the ‘Butterfly Peace Garden’ in Sri Lanka (see appendix 1), contain a clear peaceful futures envisioning dimension.

Future-oriented learning revolves around consideration of ‘probable’ futures, which, given prevailing conditions and predominating trends, are likely to come about; ‘possible’ futures, which might conceivably come about; and ‘preferred’ futures, which, given our hopes and aspirations, values and priorities, we would like to see realized. Learning activities involve children in identifying desired and undesired futures; scenario building, envisioning alternative futures at personal through global levels; understanding how past, present and future are interwoven; and, very importantly, considering how they might act to realize wished-for envisioned futures and putting their action plans into effect. In seeking to galvanize individuals, institutions and communities for change, the future is depicted as a ‘zone of potential’ in which possible futures that we would prefer but that presently stand at the margins of the zone can be pushed, through individual and/or collective action, towards the centre of the zone (Selby 2008).

The application of futures thinking to children and communities in fragile, divided and volatile contexts carries considerable potential. Sensitively facilitated, an envisioning and sharing of hopes and fears for the future – leading to recognition of shared perceptions of what would make for a better future – can be a progenitor of social cohesion and engagement that transcends divisions. This can especially be the case if the learning process generates concrete ideas for change that children and adults can work on together as they seek to realize a hoped-for future or seek to avoid or pre-empt an undesired future. In this way, futures-oriented learning can be the springboard for inclusionary and participatory community change, in which children can play a meaningful, even leadership role (see 4.4.2).

At root, futures-oriented thinking takes up the idea that the future is not fixed but is ours to make, through what we strive for and achieve in the present. Such a message can be a powerful psychological antidote in conflict-affected and fragile situations marked by a sense of hopelessness and purposelessness. Futures-oriented thinking meets the basic emotional need for transcendence, i.e., the ability to relate to different realities not only spatially but also temporally; in its promotion of anticipatory democracy (envisioning desired futures and acting in the present to achieve them) it also meets the emotional need for independence and autonomy.


4.4 School as community – school in community

4.4.1 Student participation at school [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

A key principle of CFE is that of democratic participation. This is expressed in the use of active learning processes, the presence of negotiable spaces in the curriculum, and children having a voice in school decision-making processes. It is also manifest in students being given opportunities to actively contribute to elements of school life and, through the school’s presence in the community, to community betterment (UNICEF 2009a).

A recent study of child-centred disaster risk reduction education for safe schools in Cambodia, China and Indonesia (Kagawa and Selby 2013) elaborates the distinction between adult- and teacher-framed (hierarchical) child participation, however seemingly engaging, which the researchers most frequently encountered, and consultative, negotiated and proactive (horizontal) participation more aligned with the full letter and spirit of the CRC. The study recommends that principals, teachers and community members arrive at a better understanding of child participation “so that it is less conceived of as action that falls in with adult instructions and more understood as giving voice and space for engagement at all stages in the learning process. …Put another way,


Peacebuilding gap



Curriculum, Teaching & Learning


Curriculum content

Child centered learning

Plural and parallelcitizenship education

Negotiatedcurriculum

Cooperativelearning

Socio-emotionallearning

Future-orientedlearning

Critical media literacy


there should be a move away from participation as child followership towards participation as child leadership [italics in the original]” (75).

Lansdown (2011) outlines three forms of child participation:

Consultative participation, which involves processes whereby adults seek the input of children to inform their own, adult decision making. It is adult initiated, adult led and managed, and lacks any possibility for children to directly control and contribute input into outcomes. It does, however, recognize the validity of children’s perceptions, not least because what adults hear may steer the outcomes of their deliberations.

Collaborative participation, which involves a greater level of partnership between adults and children. While adult-initiated, it enables children to input into and challenge both the ways things are done and the results. It also provides space for some self-directed action on the part of children.

Child-led participation, in which children are given or claim the space to initiate and undertake activities. Children determine the issues of concern and control the process, with adults, as and when they are called upon, acting as resource persons and facilitators.

Each form of participation is held to be in harmony with the CRC while presenting different degrees of opportunity for children to influence matters affecting them and, accordingly, offering different degrees of empowerment. Given its emphasis on children and youth proactively engaging in social change, the weighting from a peacebuilding perspective would be towards collaborative and child-led participation as carrying the most potential for practicing action skills, breaking down inter-group barriers and exercising learner empowerment. These two forms of student engagement mark a decisive shift away from ‘participation’ to ‘democratic participation’. That said, in different contexts and employed for different purposes, each form of action can be perceived as beneficial.

Dürr (2005, 33–35) sketches out a typology of student participation involving seven steps or degrees of participation, with the quality and richness of democratic participation growing step by step (seefigure6,opposite). He also identifies eight areas that are potentially amenable to student participation and five forms of student participation at the school (micro) level.

The eight areas, and the issues and conflicts they are concerned with, are: (1) individual affairs, concerning the articulation of individual interests and problems; (2) peer affairs, concerning relations between individual students or groups of students; (3) class affairs, concerning the class and the teacher, activities and projects, and peer conflict resolution; (4) school affairs, concerning the whole school community, communication with the local community, festivities and the school environment; (5) organizational affairs, concerning the regulation of school life, staff-student relations, the school building, and administrative and transport problems; (6) content and methodological issues about lesson content selection and teaching methods; (7) curricula and educational policy issues over curricular regulations and their interpretation, topic choice and student assessment; and (8) links with extra-mural activities, regarding the school’s relations with its community, out-of-school activities, and collaboration with outside agencies and organizations.

The five forms of participation are: (1) parliamentary participation in formal classroom, school or beyond-school structures through the election of representatives; (2) open participation, which encompasses informal forms of participation involving spontaneous or case-related action based on definition and diagnosis of perceived problems, collection of information, and determination of priorities and solutions; (3) project-based participation involving single-issue participation arising


from a topical issue or a learning process or theme; (4) simulated participation, or participation and democracy as practised within a simulation game; and (5) problem-solving participative approaches, for example, in which conflict resolution in the classroom and school is organized by the students or students work together on bringing down barriers and effecting reconciliation between groups within school and community.

Figure 6. Seven steps to student participation (taken from Dürr 2005, 33)

Participation in decision making, initiation of action, implementation of solutiond and evaluation

of coutcomes

Consultation on the definition of problems and the preparation of decision-making process

Co-operation with others in carrying out programs

Involvement in designing strategies or planning programs

Contribution through attendance at meetings and through labour

Contribution of some sort – resources or materials

Basic information and passive reception of decisions

The CFS ‘Global Evaluation Report’ (UNICEF 2009b) presents a mixed picture of levels of student involvement across the schools researched in each of six countries (see 4.3.2). It also presents a varied picture of types of child participation in school life. Most examples fall within the ‘consultative’ and ‘collaborative’ forms of participation, or the lower rungs of Dürr’s seven steps, with most participation framed by adults (i.e., a weighting towards participation as child followership rather than democratic participation). Reported forms of non-formal participation include: school beautification projects, making trash bins for the school and related chores, classroom decoration and cleaning, student-organized groups sharing responsibility for assigned tasks, and student volunteers undertaking food inspection and quality control.

Frequently present across child-friendly schools in the six countries is child participation in formally established bodies such as school governments, pupil parliaments and student councils aiming at giving children a voice. The Global Evaluation Report (UNICEF 2009b, 82) notes that:

Student groups often come together to discuss the issues students and the larger school community face. Often each classroom will have a representative who will have duties to perform as a member of a specific committee, such as an assembly committee or a sanitation committee. Students rotate these roles so that every child has a chance to serve on a committee (and so that the children have a wider range of experiences).

It is not clear from the data whether the formal forums described are, in their structures and workings, entirely conceived and initiated by adults or whether there has been some student input. Nor is it clear what voice children have in determining the nature and details of the informal chores


and tasks they undertake. No evidence has so far come to light of children exercising their right to freedom of assembly and association (CRC, article 15) beyond participation in school clubs, and only limited evidence has surfaced of children developing their own forms and agendas for participation.

Further, it is not clear how much teacher intrusion in the deliberations of student bodies occurs and what attention is given and what weight accorded by school leaders to recommendations and resolutions emanating from those bodies. It is also not clear to what extent issues connected to equity, protection, inclusion and conflict resolution figure on the agenda in age-appropriate ways when formal student bodies meet CFS contexts. It remains to be investigated as to whether such bodies are in a position to initiate child-framed and child-led action projects relating to aspects of the school’s functioning, including taking an oppositional stance against the status quo.

One formal avenue for participation is the school club, an extra-curricular opportunity for children to assemble and pursue a particular interest. In the Ethiopian CFS initiative, school clubs provide special places for girls’ participation in child rights, HIV/AIDS issues, media, and environmental protection activities (UNICEF 2010d). In the State of Palestine, child-friendly schools offer some 240 thematic clubs that provide opportunities to participate in extra-curricular and recreational activities as a form of psychosocial support (UNICEF 2012d). School clubs offer significant potential for peer collaboration, creativity, and building mutual understanding and leadership. A cautionary note, however, is that the extra-curricular focus can be a diversion from addressing more fundamental changes in curriculum, classroom and school (Selby and Kagawa 2014).

The CFS manual (UNICEF 2009a, 5:26) is categorical in its call for children to be free to speak out about “child protection concerns that affect them or others. …Teachers and school personnel need to listen to girls and boys to be aware of the violence they experience. Systems must be set up to take children’s voices into account and involve girls and boys in developing remedies to violent or potentially violent environments. Children should learn how to protect themselves and be involved in formulating appropriate school rules and disciplinary measures for infractions, including alternatives to corporal punishment.” Child clubs in Nepal (box 1) and Tuseme clubs in Rwanda (synoptic case study 1) provide a platform for child-led action linked to their protection concerns.

Drawing from disaster risk reduction literature (Back, Cameron and Tanner 2009), children’s active engagement in school and community conflict transformation on a spectrum from collaborative to child-led participation can cover five broad areas of contribution with children as:

• Analysers of conflict risks and risk reduction activities (e.g., conducting school and community conflict hazard assessments, surveying and analysing school and community opinion and making assembly presentations on their findings).

• Designers and implementers of peace interventions in the school and community context (e.g., school events at which students voice their hopes and visions for a peaceful future and put questions about the future to leading community members).

• Communicators of conflict risks and risk reduction initiatives (e.g., poster and other public awareness-raising campaigns; photography to illustrate and encourage discussion on peace and resilience growth points in the community; issuing a school newsletter representing community diversity and plurality).

• Mobilizers of school and community-based conflict resilience initiatives (e.g., actively contributing to committees, councils and school-hosted public awareness-raising sessions.


• Constructors of social networks and capital (e.g., creating and maintaining social media designed to bring communities together; mentoring and tutoring younger children in positive images of others).

Such forms of child engagement in the school and wider community place greater emphasis on participatory democracy while maintaining the valuable forms of representative democracy developed in child-friendly schools. They also shift participation away from an overly ‘school chores’ orientation to one of children being given space to address and exercise leadership on school and community matters that they hold to be of fundamental significance. In so doing, they create more fertile ground for new depths and forms of interpersonal and inter-group relationships to emerge.

In Colombia, youth members of ‘Multiplier Teams’ were established within all schools participating in the Youth Peace Builders Project. These young people play the active roles listed above (analysers, designers and implementers, communicators, mobilizers and constructors) in building a peaceful school and community (see box 9).

Background and activities Colombia has been torn by civil war and internal strife for more than 40 years, the nature of the conflict turning more dangerous and complex as armed groups have become involved in drug trafficking. High levels of crime, kidnapping by guerrillas and other groups and domestic violence exist on a wide scale.67

The Youth Peace Builders Project, implemented from 2003–2009 by Plan International, was purposefully aligned with the Ministry of Education’s National Citizenship Education Program launched in 2003. The project aimed to promote “among youth, teachers and parents an increased awareness, knowledge and practical use of peacebuilding and citizenship methodologies in order to foster peaceful co-existence at various reinforcing levels (school, home and community).”68 One of the distinctive features of the project was the use of ‘Multiplier Teams’ (MT), consisting of two parents, two teachers, and six boys and girls in Grades 7 and 8 in each project school. Trained through core capacity-building workshops (eight in total, every three months over two years) and by means of follow-up visits and workshops, MT members played a

pivotal role in the project, for instance:• MT members orchestrated the development

and implementation of a Peacebuilding Proposal (PBP) based on their diagnosis of the issues impacting on peaceful coexistence within their school and community.

• To promote peaceful and democratic home, school and community environments, and awareness of the value of peaceful coexistence, MT members organized and led community outreach activities such as ‘Peace Days’ and festivals (including cultural, ecological and sporting events) in collaboration with local municipal authorities. Those activities afforded valuable opportunities where students could express themselves creatively using their own language, theatre, art and sports. Team members also led strategy development so as to foster parents’ engagement in PBP implementation through dialogue and exchanges at meetings involving parents, caretakers and students. Collaborating with school principals, the Multiplier Teams actively involved parent councils and associations in the implementation of activities reaching out to a wider parent population.

Box 9. Colombia: Youth Peace Builders Project

u


From the outset of the project, PBP components were integrated into the school system and operation through various avenues and arenas, which included: using formal and non-formal education opportunities to strengthen students’ citizenship competencies; revising codes of conduct and school body functions according to democratic principles; integrating the PBP citizenship components into the curriculum; training and supporting teachers; creating mediation and ‘negotiation corners’, led and managed by students, in order to resolve conflicts within the school; and allocating time and space for peer-to-peer training by MT members.

The Youth Peace Builders Project gave opportunities for trained MT student members to practise newly learned leadership skills and become role models for their peers. The project also supported the formation of more than 25 youth organizations and a national youth network, created by those who wanted to continue their work as peace builders after graduating from school.


After two years of implementation of the programme (2005), half the youth multipliers demonstrated improved skills in, for example, communication, advocacy, leadership, group facilitation and conflict resolution. Many youth developed confidence through working as peace builders.69 The project incorporated participatory monitoring and evaluation systems that actively involved

students in data collection and analysis. It also employed a longitudinal study in order to “record the transformation of student attitudes in relation to justice, equity and democratic participation.” The research identified positive attitudinal change among participating students including increasingly favourable attitudes towards political participation, peaceful coexistence and equity.70

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Employing peer-to-peer empowerment methods; developing youth leadership, communicationandconflictresolutionskills;usingcreative means of expression to convey peace messages; developing school and community links (especially by mobilizing parental support); changing school policy, practice and culture by embedding peacebuilding principles; creating spaces for student-led initiatives and spaces for dialogue between students, the wider school and community members; and addressing basic emotional needs such as effectiveness and control, positive sense of identity, and independence and autonomy.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: An initiative designed to maximize its impact by creating synergies between the school (micro-system) and community (exo-system) levels from the outset. Intentionally designed to align with the National Citizenship Education Program, but the extent to which this enabled the programme to have a wider influenceandalsosustainoutcomesafteritsclosein2009 is not clear.

4.4.2 Student participation in and with the community [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

In CFS thinking, schools and communities are “organically linked in multiple ways” and the links are “defining imperatives of the child-friendly school” (UNICEF 2009a, 4:1, 3). The links are seen as having a pedagogic dimension, given that what children bring to school in terms of beliefs, knowledge, understandings, hopes, experiences, expectations and behaviours is the starting point for child-centred learning processes – while whatever new knowledge, skills and attitudes they acquire out of those processes feeds into family and community. The pedagogic links between school and community are reinforced by the school’s role in supporting community development, by children’s learning taking “place in a variety of circumstances in the child’s wider environment,”


and through partnerships between schools and other local agencies and stakeholders in furtherance of “all aspects of child-friendliness” (18).

While CFS student participation in community activities is seen as one means of reinforcing school outreach into the community (UNICEF 2009a), participation seems to be conceived of as a co-curricular or extra-curricular activity rather than integrally linked to and embedded in the curriculum and what happens in the classroom. A combination of the elements in CFS understanding of school/community links, especially those concerning child learning in the immediate environment and child participation in community activities, opens up rich peacebuilding potential, as yet largely untapped. It raises the prospect of using structured learning approaches grounded in the curriculum as a platform for students to practise change agency and participatory democracy as they take forward initiatives directed at strengthening community bonds and building community resilience.

Here, child-friendly schooling might draw on developing practice in the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) education (see 3.3). Essentially, there are two aspects to DRR/CCA learning engagement with the community. The first focuses on community enquiry and engages students in out-of-school learning activities involving community vulnerability mapping and assessment, cross-community vulnerability transects, collecting indigenous opinion and drawing on the experience of elders on hazard and disaster management, and, in the light of such enquiries and surveys, bringing students and adults together to jointly develop resilience action planning. The second, following from the former, focuses on child participation in, even leadership of, community-based action projects aimed at building disaster resilience (Selby and Kagawa 2014).

The same twofold approach to student engagement in the community can be applied to peacebuilding. Working alongside adults, children and youth can work on both ‘enquiry projects’ aimed at understanding the causes, consequences and dynamics of community conflict and at identifying ways to normalize community life to which they might contribute, and ‘action projects’ aimed at knowledge sharing, creating arenas for dialogue, building appreciation of difference and developing community habits of participatory democratic engagement.

Thailand CFS offers an example of an enquiry project where children conduct case study research on health issues in the community (UNICEF 2009f). Mozambique and Sierra Leone offer examples of action projects. In CFS initiatives in Mozambique, students are trained as ‘social mobilizers’ to work in conjunction with local theatre groups promoting debate around solutions to local problems. The activities involve local radio, mobile media units and the theatre groups themselves (UNICEF ESARO 2009). In Sierra Leone, the Moyamba District’s Children’s Awareness Radio is a child-led and community-based radio station producing weekly one-hour programming on disaster risk reduction (Plan International 2010).

‘Community-based service-learning’ is a form of community-based action built around volunteer engagement in response to genuine community needs. It takes place outside of the formal school environment and is often led by community-based organizations with particular experience in working with populations in need, such as elderly people, refugees and people with disabilities (Stewart 2012). Working in heterogeneous groups and through peer-to-peer engagement, community-based service-learning is offering Palestinian youth scope for community engagement, helping them build a positive sense of identity as well as develop pro-social attitudes and civic skills (see box 10).



Palestinian youth are a ghettoized “trapped majority” that struggles for “self-definition amidst uncertain notions of nationhood and positions of marginalization within their own cultural context.” Lacking an upbringing and education that affords them practical civic experience, bored, denied outlets for making their needs and views known, and with limited employment prospects, young people “have become disinterested in political and associated civic affairs” and complacent about the status quo. Feelings of helplessness and frustration sometimes tip over into destructive behaviour. Traditional Palestinian culture, in which youth are held to be unready for civic engagement, exacerbates the marginalized status of young people.71

To engage youth, Ruwwad, a Palestinian non-governmental organization founded in 2005, adopted a community-based service-learning approach outside the formal educational environment. Its twofold aim was to increase opportunities for 18- to 28-year-old Palestinians to participate in delivering humanitarian assistance and to enhance positive citizenship through community service and grass-roots, youth-led initiatives.72

Ruwwad uses a ‘30/30’ model under which every 30 days, 30 youth join a public service training programme (one day of orientation followed by three days of intensive training) that leads to youth-led community service based on real community needs, with the length of service lasting 26 days. Recruitment happens through peer-to-peer marketing at local cafes, universities, youth clubs and youth ‘hang-outs’ as well as through media and social media. Selection ensures that there are roughly equal numbers in each cohort from the three areas of the West Bank. At the training, participants learn about leadership, team building, community mobilization and advocacy, using information and communication technologies for community development, programme design and

budgeting, effective communication, and community service initiative planning. Learning approaches involve participatory skills development, cooperative group work and games.73 A key element in the Ruwwad programme is for teams of youth to develop plans, during the training period, for their own community service initiative that responds to a pressing community issue. Each team must number at least four members, with each member representing a different governorate in the West Bank. With the support of Ruwwad staff, teams go on to implement their project after a panel of judges chooses one initiative for further development and implementation, backed by financial and in-kind support. Successful initiatives have included: beach clean-ups in Gaza, coordinating summer camps for children, running breast cancer awareness campaigns, establishing a website for the informal education of 16- to 17-year-olds, and organizing village health days for communities that have little or no access to medical care.

Ruwwad coordinators are of the same age as the youth participants, the rationale being that, “through a flattened power hierarchy,” participants feel more comfortable sharing opinions.74


After the 30/30 programme, participants self-reported a stronger sense of civic identity and responsibility, a finding that carries promise “for the development of an active, participatory citizenry for an independent Palestine.”75 There seem to have been significant gains in social networking and cohesion. Youth report being attracted to the programme by their admiration for young people who were already participating. Training drawing on all parts of the West Bank and climaxing in a community service initiative in which a heterogeneous group of young people have to work together is reported as fostering a sense of empowerment and shared identity as Palestinian

Box 10. State of Palestine: Ruwwad Community-Based Service-Learning for Youth Empowerment


In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, discussion groups offered safe spaces where adolescent girls and boys could raise issues that were important to them and helped them develop a sense of agency in their own self-protection within their immediate environment (see box 11).

youth. ‘Safe and honest’ conversations about Palestinian issues happens in the groups.

Working together on projects gives team members the opportunity to reflect on and discuss the learning process they were experiencing. They also gain knowledge of the diverse communities where their project took them. In tackling obstacles standing in the way of realizing their initiative, they learn to think ‘out of the box’. Several young people felt they had developed keener self-awareness and greater ability to think critically and problem solve. Socio-emotional impacts of the initiative are reported by youth as: a greater sense of belonging; feelings of heightened self-confidence, self-esteem and self-worth; a sense of being in charge of their own destiny; and a more formed and rounded sense of identity as a Palestinian citizen.

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Creating opportunities for youth to work together on community service in heterogeneous groups; nurturing civic identity; peer-to-peer empowerment; developing critical, creative and independent thinking skills; developing problem-solving and leadership skills; developing self-regulating and pro-social attitudes; contributing to social cohesion; and addressing basic emotional needs such as positive sense of identity, independence and autonomy, and transcendence.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: A non-governmental agency initiative working from the agency (micro-system) and out into neighbourhoods (exo-system). Its macro impact is primarily one of influencingattitudesandculturalpatterns.


As part of UNICEF’s global initiative ‘A Strengthened Response to Gender Equality and Women and Girls’ Empowerment in Emergency’ (2008–2009), girls-only and boys-only adolescent discussion groups were developed among internally displaced populations (IDP) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Set within child-friendly spaces they provide an informal educational platform for adolescent girls and boys to discuss, share and learn about issues of importance to them (for instance, sexual violence, relations with the opposite sex, personal hygiene in the camp).76 The discussion groups offer safe space for psychosocial support to those who have been

affected by conflict. They also provide participating adolescents with opportunities to identify and put in place community-led solutions.77 Trained adults from non-governmental organizations facilitate discussion groups. Participating boys and girls are encouraged to question and challenge discriminatory customs and root causes of inequality and gender-based violence. Outside of discussion groups, members continue to talk with their peers about challenges, taboos and harmful habits. In 2009, there were 22 groups for girls and 22 groups for boys, with an average of 15 members per group. Half of the groups were located in IDP camps, and the other half in areas of IDP return. Since 2008,

Box 11. Democratic Republic of the Congo: Adolescent Girls’ and Boys’ Discussion Groups

u


Child participation in peace-promoting media production and broadcasting offers particular advantages. Creative work with media – community radio, music and dance performance, interactive theatre, art, (still and moving) photography and forms of social media – is particularly attractive to very many children. Also, especially in post-conflict contexts, it can be therapeutic: “When children and youth are given the chance to have a voice and to produce media content of their own, they undergo a process of transformation that increases their self-confidence, builds their self-esteem, and enables them to transform feelings of revenge or pain into something positive and constructive” (Spadacini 2013, 9).

Further, a child-devised media message carries cross-community amplification potential as it is received, discussed and internalized, with the possibility of it reaching multipliers and decision makers. For instance, public display of children’s drawings on the theme of peace, as part of a nationwide children’s drawing competition in Burundi, provided opportunities for adults and children to discuss the theme of peace (see synoptic case study 8). In West Africa, children and youth groups used such media as comic books, radio, websites and art to sensitize other young people and adults to issues of violence against children (see synoptic case study 12).

In potentially volatile and risky post-conflict contexts, peace-oriented media production and dissemination might offer safer access to the public sphere for child change advocacy and agency than in-community face-to-face activities in some situations (Spadacini 2013).

In conflict-affected contexts, it is important in CFS community engagement – involving an active and visible presence and engagement in a locality and/or harnessing media for peace promotion purposes – that as much as possible children work in teams composed of individuals of diverse backgrounds: “Planning together, working for a common purpose, and achieving a final goal that benefits everyone enables people to redefine one another and transcend the divisions that fuelled the conflict” (Spadacini 2013, 25) Working cooperatively as a heterogeneous team in change agency can rebuild trust and respect, transcend divisions and channel negative energies into building positive change. The medium is peace bearing, the messages emanating from visibly heterogeneous teams and peace bearing.

approximately 2,300 adolescents aged 13–17 have participated in the discussion groups.78


Through the discussion groups, girls have felt more valued, empowered and self-confident in expressing their needs and seeking opportunities previously denied them. In some places, discussion groups have evolved into a larger movement to reduce the risk of gender-based violence in villages and camps. For instance, some boys’ discussion groups helped UNICEF build allies and create community vigilance groups reporting protection concerns to local leaders and police.79

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Creating a safe space where adolescents can express their concerns and opinions freely; peer-to-peer learning, support and empowerment; critically reflectingongenderinequalityandharmfulculturalnorms and practices; taking concrete action at the community level; and addressing basic emotional needs such as security and effectiveness and control.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Essentially an initiative operating at the macro-systemic level but with some spillovers at the exo-systemic level. Sustainability unclear.


As mentioned earlier (see 4.2.2.2), another effective peacebuilding vehicle is a sport. Sport not only provides an arena for bringing divided communities together but also an entry point for dialogue, collaboration, mutual understanding and trust building, as the examples of Generations for Peace (box 12) and the Peace Club Project in Nigeria (box 13) illustrate. In both cases, sport-based activities serve to create a positive sense of belonging among participating youth. Sport is also used as a means of breaking down barriers and building intra- and inter-community relationships in the following cases.


Founded by HRH Prince Feisal Al Hussein and HRH Princess Sarah Al-Feisal in 2007, Generations for Peace (GFP) is a Jordanian-based global non-profit organization dedicated to sustainable peacebuilding and conflict transformation through sport. GFP aims at empowering volunteer youth “to lead and cascade change in their communities, promoting active tolerance and responsible citizenship and working at the grassroots to address local issue of conflict and violence.”80 GFP defines ‘active tolerance’ as “active understanding, dialogue, and positive engagement with others founded on trust and respect.”81

GFP’s Pioneer Certification Programme is an intensive 10-day peace-through-sport camp offered for up to 80 youth leaders living in different degrees and forms of conflict-affected and violent situations. Since 2007, GFP has trained more than 8,100 volunteer youth leaders from 46 countries and territories in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe. Through GFP’s unique curriculum – the programme materials include modules on sport and peace, peacebuilding, working with children and youth, ‘train the trainers’, advocacy and partnerships, and sports such as softball, football, basketball and volleyball, as well as a learning facilitator’s guide – participants learn about peacebuilding theory and practise and sports coaching skills. They also learn how to apply peacebuilding and sport to the situations of conflict and violence where they live.

Working with GFP, participants set up target activities to be delivered in their own communities to cascade

sustainable change down to grass-roots level. They are expected to deliver one or more of the following GFP programmes:

➢ Advocacy event: a one-day conference, seminar, workshop, lecture or presentation on topics such as tolerance, understanding and peace, the GFP programme and/or the promotion of sport as a tool for peacebuilding.

➢ Sports event: one-day sports event with a variety of sports played at different levels and bringing together diverse community members.

➢ Sports programme for children and youth: sports programme to be delivered over a period of time (minimum two months) by bringing together children and youth from different sides of divided communities and using various sports, including sports adapted to local culture, and traditional games.

➢ Training advocates: selected candidates attending an advocacy event to be trained as advocates helping with GFP activities and facilitating partnerships.

➢ Training youth instructors: training selected youth to implement sports events and sports programmes for youth and children, the training focuses not only on sports coaching but also peacebuilding techniques, helping children and youth from different backgrounds bond.

➢ Training trainers: training future trainers so as to cascade GFP initiatives.82

Box 12. Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe: Generations for Peace

u


After the 10-day camp, GFP continues to support and mentor youth volunteers in the design, implementation and evaluation of their own conflict-transformation initiatives.83 For instance, a four-day refresher course was given to 38 GFP volunteers based in Aden, Yemen, in May 2013. It aimed at strengthening their knowledge and skills for two initiatives they were running in their own communities. The first involved sports-based activities, bringing together refugee children from Somalia, internally conflict-displaced Yemeni children and children of host communities. The second involved programmes bringing together feuding youth from different political parties, using dialogue to address and resolve their political differences and to encourage mutual understanding and active tolerance.84

Upon completing their own targets, youth volunteers are certified as ‘Generations for Peace Pioneers’. As Pioneers, they continue to give training to other youth and advocate GFP activities in their own countries. Those who are particularly active are further trained to become facilitators for the Pioneer Certification Programme. Through its cascading approach, Generations for Peace has already touched the lives of more than 210,000 children, youth and adults.


Testimonies are available from GFP Pioneers who have broadened their awareness and instigated change through the organization’s initiatives. For instance, Mohammad Asideh in the State of Palestine, now leading GFP programmes involving more than 3,000 children, states: “I used to believe that conflict could be solved only by violence, that

there was no other way to deal with it except to respond to violence with violence. But that changed for me after the GFP camps.” Jyldyz Sattarova, in Kyrgyzstan, witnessed GFP activities “really bring[ing] youth together across different social divides, building mutual understanding and peace through sport-based games and fun activities.” Implementing a series of GFP activities with internally displaced people in the Jalozai camp, Pakistan, Zihid Johnson gradually built up trust with families and eventually gained access to tribal leaders. He has then started “real peacebuilding work” by bringing adult members together to discuss their hopes and dreams for children, so helping to reduce stereotypes and build bridges between different tribal groups.85

Partnering with Georgetown University and Oxford University, GFP established its own research arm – the Generations for Peace Institute – in 2010, to research, monitor and evaluate its activities. Research activities seem to be ongoing, but further details have so far not been obtained.

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Empowering youth to lead and cascade change in their own communities; youth as social actors and agents for change; bringing divided communities together through sport; using sport as an entry point for dialogue, collaboration, mutual understanding and active tolerance; and addressing basic emotional needs such as effectiveness and control and a positive sense of belonging.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Large programme working across all socioecological layersand,onthataccount,durableinitsinfluence.



Since 2009, extremist Islamic groups in northern Nigeria have launched waves of attacks on security forces, governmental facilities, including schools, and populations regarded as sympathetic to government – while exploiting grievances triggered by poverty, governmental corruption, ethno-religious divisions and the abuses of security forces to fuel Islamic radicalization. In consequence, “social and economic activities in the northern states are diminishing markedly, communities are fracturing, and general anxiety is growing”86 Radicalization is particularly evident among youth as they look for a cause with which to identify in a regional context of youth unemployment, lack of economic opportunity and pervasive poverty set within an oil-rich country.

The Peace Club Project, the brainchild of the Peace Initiative Network in partnership with the British Council,87 was launched in 2006. It aims to promote dialogue and team sports among young people from disparate backgrounds so as to ease ethno-religious tensions, helping members develop leadership, collaborative problem-solving abilities and cross-cultural skills. The Club began with 50 members across seven high schools; it currently has more than 8,000 members across 60 high schools. There are some 1,625 Club graduates.88 Membership is for 7- to 18-year-olds and is divided into three sections, for ages 7–10, 11–13 and 14–18.89

Muslim and Christian youth of diverse ethnicities are trained as peer mediators and life coaches to promote values of tolerance and understanding and to facilitate non-violent conflict resolution. Sometimes working alongside community leaders from non-governmental organizations and religious groups, they teach Club members to question ethnic stereotypes and prejudices.

Peace Club members meet once a week, usually beginning with a single school or inter-school game of sport. Flashpoints, such as fights, quarrels and

non-involvement of particular players, are used to prompt group discussion of fairness, conflict resolution and inclusiveness. Other activities are likewise used as opportunities for reinforcing a peace ethic

Beyond the school-based weekly meetings, public lectures, inter-school programmes and summer peace camps are arranged to reinforce positive thinking and approaches to diversity. These special events are very important, given that schools are generally organized so genders and ethnic groups are separated. Peace Club facilitators also organize interfaith dialogues and town hall meetings that are attended by youth and “in which parents, community leaders, and religious groups participate to build a sustainable peaceful coexistence among all groups.”90

A monthly meeting for leaders and representatives from all participating schools is held at which school situation reports are delivered followed by deliberations on future directions.


Peace Club members attest to the positive effect participation has had upon their attitudes towards those belonging to different religions or ethnic groups in Nigeria: “Life skills learned through the Club have empowered the young members, enhanced their psycho-social well-being, and increased their resiliency, self-esteem, respect and connection to others.”91 Parental attitudes have also shifted as a result of their involvement in Peace Club special interfaith and inter-community events, with abundant anecdotal evidence of adults belonging to different ethnic groups meeting socially and attending each other’s ceremonial rites of passage (child naming, weddings, funerals, and so on).

While insufficient in scale to address the pervasive issue of de-radicalizing and disengaging youth drawn to extremism, the Peace Club Project offers

Box 13. Nigeria: Peace Club Project

u


4.4.3 School as community hub/entry point [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

Beyond the pedagogic and participatory links between the child-friendly school and its community, links also arise from the need for local financial and resource support for the school from parents and community members. More fundamentally, the child’s right to quality education can only be roundly achieved by school, parents and community working in tandem: “When a rights-based approach is taken seriously, as with child-friendly schools, parents and communities must be closely involved in all aspects of the school” (UNICEF 2009a, 4:4). According to CFE thinking, the school must be an integral part of the community, with open lines of dialogue between principals and teachers, parents and community members: “This dialog across boundaries is what distinguishes child-friendly schools from other schools. They often become oases for the wider community, sometimes providing the only space for town or village meetings and festivities” (4:18).

This insight prompts the idea of the peacebuilding child-friendly school as the hub or the community entry point for environmental and community security, offering a level playing field for local people to meet as they reconcile, build a new collective identity, build mutual respect and appreciation for difference, and forge their own peace-promoting and resilience-building agenda. Put another way, schools are “unique community hubs for multi-sectoral programming researching into community” (UNICEF 2012c, 23). Applying a traditional CFS approach to the whole community, the ‘Support to Child-Friendly Environments through Community Participation in Port-au-Prince, Haiti’ project was designed to improve overall living conditions and the environment of vulnerable populations, particularly children, and to create synergy between various UNICEF initiatives in Haiti. It was implemented in 19 public schools in the poorest and most violence-affected areas of Port-au-Prince, and a key feature of the programme was facilitating strong involvement of local communities and the private sector in carrying out the proposed works (UNICEF Haiti 2009).

It is within such a framework that child-led change advocacy and agency for peace is likely to be most welcomed and successful. “There is,” writes Stephen Skoutajan (2012, 35), “a strong case to be made for turning our schools into community hubs where students can learn through authentic,

pointers to a way forward. Evidence suggests that, beyond addressing the economic drivers of alienation, extremist youth can be turned from the direction they have taken through the cultivation of a new sense of belonging. Enabling ethno-religiously mixed communities to “find their own voice through dialog,”92 as the Peace Clubs have done, can provide that focus of belonging and merits scaling up.

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Promoting inter-ethnic tolerance and understanding; developing collaborative problem solvingandconflictresolutionskills;buildinginter-

group and interfaith dialogue for youth and for communities (with youth participating and providing co-leadership); building new allegiances by enabling mixed communities to develop their own voice, shared values and identity; and addressing basic emotional needs such as a positive sense of belonging and independence and autonomy.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: An effectiveprogrammeworkingacrossasignificantbutstill limited number of schools (micro-systemic level) andwithinfluentialcommunity(exo-systemic)reachbut not embedded at the macro-systemic level.


meaningful and practical experiences.” That same conviction informs a Central American disaster risk reduction project through which schools assume bioregional leadership as promoters of ‘territorial safety’. A key contribution to territorial risk management through each school’s educative mission requires “children and young people to be trained as social players” through involvement in resilience-building initiatives (UNISDR et al. 2008, 76). In the same way, child-friendly schools can more actively take on board the role of local peacebuilding hubs promoting local safety, security and resilience, with children assuming an ambassadorial and catalytic role. In Nepal’s Schools as Zones of Peace initiative (see box 1) schools have become the community hub for peace advocacy, security and protection.

To implement the idea of schools as community hub/entry points that offer capacity-building training for members of the school committee and parent-teacher association (PTA) is vital in that they can contribute to making school management more conflict sensitive and peacebuilding relevant and can become ‘agents for change’ within the wider community. An example can be taken from the 2009–2012 United Nations Joint Programme on Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding in Sudan. PTA members, consisting of male and female village members from all the tribes (including tribes with longstanding tensions between them) in South Kordofan, an area of exceedingly complex conflict, were trained in school administration, accounting and advocacy for education, as well as in conflict resolution.

The final report on the project (MDG Achievement Fund 2013) points out that the PTA has played “a crucial role in the community not only to ensure the management and sustainability of the school but also to provide a communication platform for the different tribes.” It goes on to say that when the PTA meets monthly, “they now discuss and solve not only school issues but also the community problems together. The trained PTA helps build the trust among the different tribes in the community and prevent potential disputes or conflicts” (6).


Peacebuilding gap



School as Community/ School in Community


Student participation at school

Student action in community

Schools as a community hub/entry point

4.5 School as learning organization

4.5.1 School self-assessment and school improvement planning [peacebuilding resonant]

CFS models “by definition involve an ongoing process of change and improvement along a quality pathway” (UNICEF 2009a, 8:6). Child-friendly schools as ‘self-improving organizations’ require the


active engagement and collaboration of all school stakeholders – teachers, school administrators, students, parents and community members – in processes of change.

School self-assessment and school improvement planning has been used in a number of countries for ongoing school development, in various ways, with school-community stakeholders playing key roles in investigating and analysing the state of their own local school. A centrally developed assessment tool, including a set of indicators and standards, is often used. Based on the analysis, stakeholders prioritize and come up with their own visions, strategies and school development plan aimed at making the school more child-friendly. Implementation, monitoring of progress, reflection and review, further planning and action then continue in a cyclical round. This is in line with the participatory learning and action research approach as used in community development where stakeholders identify their own issues and prioritize actions according to their needs (UNICEF 2009b; UNICEF EAPRO 2006).

Such a community development process very much resonates with the peacebuilding ethos of local participation, capacity building, ownership and empowerment. School self-assessment and school improvement processes open up spaces where stakeholder groups from different ethnic backgrounds, women and men, girls and boys, can come together and build consensus through dialogue. The process can be empowering in that stakeholders create their own visions and take concrete actions according to consensual priorities using local resources and capacities, rather than acting on solutions imposed by outsiders. By explicitly bringing divided community members together or by bringing children and community members from marginalized communities into the process, it can provide important mutual learning opportunities that can contribute to building positive interpersonal and inter-group relationships and trust.

School self-assessment and planning can also be given a more thoroughgoing peacebuilding orientation by embedding conflict risk analysis within school assessment tools and frameworks. This type of approach aligns with the UNICEF PBEA programme proposal, imbued with socioecological thinking, for conducting conflict analysis at the ‘children/school’ level, together with the other four levels: national context, education sector, community and UNICEF education section (UNICEF 2011c, 27).

4.5.2 Monitoring and evaluation [peacebuilding latent<>resonant]

In the CFS framework, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is “a means of driving forward the dynamic process of change while keeping track of progress in effectiveness, efficacy and impact” (UNICEF 2009a, 8:5). Importantly, it advocates full engagement of teachers, pupils, school administrators, parents and community members in M&E processes as “principal actors who need to learn from their own practices in order to reflect and make changes that improve those practices.” The CFS framework places strong emphasis on ‘community-based monitoring and evaluation’ and community capacity building to participate in the process. To make monitoring and evaluation empowering for the stakeholders, it also suggests sharing results across the community and offering training for teachers and principals (though there is no mention of community multipliers) to develop their capacity as reflective practitioners or action researchers.

‘Monitoring and evaluation as learning’ is a stance taken by peacebuilding practitioners who emphasize the importance of developing capacity to learn about the change processes they are promoting (Lederach, Neufeldt and Culbertson 2007). Peacebuilding practitioners, it is maintained, need to be reflective practitioners who can “design and impact transformative change, and track and improve upon those changes over time, in unpredictable conflict contexts” (iii). From this point of view, the CFS M&E framework is very much peacebuilding resonant.


In terms of full participation by school stakeholders in monitoring and evaluation, there is room for exploring types and levels of child participation (see 4.4.1). Proposed and actual child roles in M&E seem to be predominantly ‘consultative’. For instance, there is only very brief reference to using introspective diaries by children and to providing children with training in basic research methods (UNICEF 2009a, 8:24). Developing the capacity of children, especially older children and young people, to become co-researchers or even ‘active researchers’ (Kellet 2005) offers a further means of empowering children. The notion of children as active researchers is underpinned by the belief that children can offer valuable insights and an original contribution to knowledge since children, having different concerns to adults, observe realities with fresh eyes, ask questions which adults do not think to ask and have immediate access to peer culture (Kellet 2005; Plan International 2010). This way of thinking is clearly very much in line with CRC article 12.

For instance, according to a recent UNICEF CEE/CIS initiative on youth participatory research, having been provided with training and support, youth participants from Chechnya, Georgia, Kosovo and Tajikistan demonstrated that they were very capable of planning and conducting research as well as engaging in advocacy. The girl-to-girl and boy-to-boy approach allowed peers, markedly so girls, to speak openly and freely: “The peer-to-peer methodology not only contributed to the effectiveness of the study as a whole but it also empowered the young researchers” (UNICEF 2011a, 6). At the J. F. Kennedy High School in Dakar, Senegal, trained girl students, teachers and administrative staff in an action research group conducted research on violence at school. The girls in the research group engaged in all stages of research, helping to identify the root causes and manifestations of violence at the school, disseminate research findings to the whole school and develop action plans to address the issues identified through the research. The self-esteem of the girls in the action research group increased as teachers and peers acknowledged their experience and authority on violence issues (see synoptic case study 9). The J. F. Kennedy model is entirely replicable for examining inter-group issues and relations.

Competencies commonly put forward by peacebuilding education literature – such as skill for critical thinking, communication (dialogic questioning and listening), problem solving, negotiation and decision making – are all drawn upon in participatory action research. The notion of ‘children and youth as active researchers’ will be an important entry point within peacebuilding-oriented child-friendly schooling.


Peacebuilding gap



School as Learning Organization


Schools self-assessment and school improvement

planning

M&E


5.1 Professional development [peacebuilding latent]

CFS thinking places great store on professional development, for example: “Reform that seeks to make schools child-friendly system-wide will succeed only to the extent that it is possible to build a critical mass of trained, committed teachers, education managers and teacher educators” (UNICEF 2009a, 6:8–9). The ambition of realizing system-wide change calls for CFE training for teachers already in service and, with a view to ensuring that the reform process can be sustained, the pre-service training in both CFS theory and practice of cohorts of intending teachers (6–7). So far, integrating child-friendly education into pre-service programmes has been seen as the secondary challenge, the focus being on “designing appropriate in-service programmes that prepare current teachers for the demands and challenges of the highly innovative, child-friendly school models” (6:9).

Conflict-sensitive and peacebuilding education also place emphasis on teacher education. According to INEE (2013, 30), “In a conflict-affected context, teacher training, professional development and support is an opportunity to impact, at scale, the transformation to a more peaceful, respectful, civically-minded population.”

In CFS thinking, the teacher is the facilitator of a child-centred pedagogy in the classroom, ensuring an overall child-friendly ambience and, second, a key contributor to wider change processes involving the whole school and the school in its community. The implication is that, optimally, teachers should be trained in how to animate child-friendly learning while also acquiring skills in both change advocacy and agency that they can apply in building a child-friendly culture across the broader school context. The particular mix of training and the extent to which school principals train alongside their teachers and/or separately are matters determined within country.

Generally speaking, the menu of training covers: the facilitation of child-centred pedagogy, administering child-friendly forms of discipline, and skills building for effective participation in processes of school self-assessment (see 4.5.1) and in school improvement planning and implementation. A key issue revolves around teacher ownership of the reform process: the degree to which teachers are “included in planning reform as opposed to simply being asked to implement it” (6:11). Where the goal is to build a sense of teacher ownership, the teacher training, usually in conjunction with principals, covers school assessment and improvement. Altogether, there is no common overarching framework for CFS training provision, but the burden of teacher training seems to be weighted towards classroom management.

Section 5

System-wide child-friendly education through a peacebuilding lens


In Uganda, CFS professional development has been systematically extended to both teachers and principals through training in child-centred methodologies, how to create a child-friendly environment, psychosocial education and positive disciplinary approaches (UNICEF 2010e, 2012h). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, CFS teachers have been offered basic training followed by advanced instruction in child-centred methodology, while principals and management teams have received training in school improvement planning. As a result, all schools in the country have implemented at least one of the CFS principles (UNICEF 2010a). In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, there is thinner provision through a system of district-level pedagogic advisers who support CFS development (UNICEF 2011e).

In the search for a more coherent, consolidated account of what constitutes a CFS model that documents key principles, common practices, effective approaches and lessons learned, UNICEF has been working in cooperation with the Commonwealth of Learning to mainstream the CFS approach into pre-service and in-service teacher education curricula (Umar, Kinakin and McEachern 2012). One output of the partnership has been a draft set of CFS indicators and standards for teacher education (Irvine and Harvey 2010). Intended as a self-evaluation tool for teacher education institutions, countries are encouraged to adapt what is presented to their own teacher education culture.

Organized under the CFS principles of child-centredness, inclusiveness and democratic participation, the standards and indicators map out a comprehensive and rigorous vision of CFS-rich teacher education. Primarily oriented towards classroom practice, they also address training around teachers’ potential whole school change contribution. The following outline of quality standards for the teacher education programme (Irvine and Harvey 2010) draws together the most relevant elements for generating child-friendly teacher professional development with a clear peacebuilding orientation.

Child-centredness quality standard – promotes a child-centred pedagogy and teaching and learning process as it:

• Demonstrates effective integration and mainstreaming of life skills in the curriculum.

• Models exemplary strategies for activity-based teaching.

• Delivers individual, pair- and group-based learning that involves problem solving, creativity, critical thinking and cooperation.

• Ensures the skills for working with children who have disabilities or emotional and social difficulties.

• Offers strengthened competency in such areas as inclusive education, security and gender awareness.

Child-centredness quality standard – ensures awareness of violence, safety, protection and effective discipline in relation to children as it:

• Seeks support from governmental and non-governmental organizations to deliver effective training on child protection, particularly during conflicts and emergencies.

• Trains its participants to recognize abuse, violence, harassment and suffering in children and complies with strategies for sensitive referral of children ‘at risk’.

• Secures skills and knowledge on non-violent alternatives to physical punishment.


Inclusiveness quality standard – encompasses an integrated approach to promoting and ensuring children’s rights as it:

• Includes practical activities to promote awareness of children’s rights.

• Explores the implications of gender-based, racial, religious, ethnic and cultural discrimination for the intellectual, social and personal development of children.

• Avoids religious, gender, ethnic, cultural or geographical bias and stereotypes.

Inclusiveness quality standard – incorporates strategies for ensuring that inclusiveness, diversity and individual learning needs of children are achieved as it:

• Raises issues of diversity and promoting inclusion in the classroom and school.

• Introduces strategies to ensure inclusive and non-discriminatory practices in the classroom.

• Nurtures the creation and sustained development of gender-sensitive and gender-responsive learning environments.

Democratic participation quality standard – promotes the active participation of children, their parents and the community through the role of the teacher and school as it:

• Demonstrates opportunities, channels and platforms for children to express their views (‘children’s voice’), propose suggestions and inform their education.

• Introduces school council models in which children elect representatives who meet regularly with school administrators to share the children’s views.

• Demonstrates the importance of proactively developing suggestions from children on a regular basis and encouraging children’s involvement in this process.

Regarding the democratic participation principle, it appears to be under-represented in terms of indicators focusing on child participation, with most indicators relating to building community and inter-school partnerships that involve adult stakeholders (Irvine and Harvey 2010). That said, the Commonwealth of Learning indicators provide a generally comprehensive schema from which to develop and evaluate CFS teacher education programmes. A number of indicators – including those on developing critical thinking and cooperation, training in recognizing and addressing forms of violence, counteracting discrimination and stereotypes, fostering inclusiveness and providing channels and arenas for child and youth democracy – are highly congruent with a peacebuilding ethic. Others, taken together, provide a generally enabling backdrop for education directed at promoting peace.

In order to develop student competencies and dispositions related to peacebuilding in conflict-affected contexts as identified in section 3, child-friendly professional development for teachers needs to:

• Immerse teachers in curricula addressing human rights, principles, modes and processes of democratic participation, inter-community relations, issues of conflict reduction and resolution and how to handle such topics in conflict-affected or otherwise crisis-torn contexts.

• Explain and model the concepts of multiple citizenship, constructive patriotism and active bystandership, and demonstrate how to guide students through the learning and relational challenges presented by each concept.


• Show how to negotiate elements of the curriculum with children.

• Enable participants to experience diverse forms of learner-centred learning and demonstrate how each can be used with children for peacebuilding ends.

• Pay attention to the theory – and the practical management – of cooperative learning.

• Train teachers in the sensitive facilitation of socio-emotional learning, especially in conflict-affected contexts.

• Raise sensitivity levels to bias, prejudice and stereotypes in texts and teaching materials, and offer strategies for adapting biased or inflammatory materials or otherwise using them to positive learning effect.

• Train teachers in developing and practising critical media literacy skills with their students.

• Familiarize teachers with ways of having children reflect on the future and consider probable, possible and preferred futures.

• Train teachers in promoting student democratic participation in multiple forms and arenas, including action-oriented projects in school and community.

These, as with other standards and indicators, would be adaptable by jurisdictions according to the particular teacher training, sociocultural and post-conflict context.

Existing teacher education resources such as the International Rescue Committee’s ‘Healing Classrooms’ programme materials on facilitation of socio-emotional learning in conflict-affected contexts (see synoptic case study 10) and the ‘Emerging Issues’ Teacher Training Programme in Sierra Leone (see synoptic case study 11) aimed at both pre-service and in-service teacher training have implemented some of the points suggested above.

Embedding stronger peacebuilding elements in CFS teacher education adds even sharper definition to the problem of achieving “high coverage with high quality” (Irvine and Harvey 2010, 9) teacher education. In-service education often delivered through time-constrained, one-off workshop events or ‘training the trainer’ approaches that are cascaded down to successive levels (with some blurring of original focus and enervation of original momentum) and that lack follow-up and aftercare support can leave teachers ill-equipped to take on a new role or facilitate novel learning approaches. In such circumstances, peacebuilding elements woven into CFS training, which are likely to be seen as challenging anyway, may be among the first casualties.

CFS initiatives often employ a cluster approach to teachers’ professional development. The approach allows for continuous and localized training based on a small network of schools whose teachers, following one or more initial training events, share experiences, ideas and resources and otherwise engage in teacher-to-teacher support in the form of training, observation and assessment: “In practice, the most important advantages of the school clusters include providing opportunities for teachers to participate in continuous in-service training without travelling long distances and facilitating the use of needs-based, demand driven teacher training based on the ‘teacher teach teacher’ school-based in-service training model” (UNICEF 2009a, 6:12). Often the cluster revolves around a teacher resource centre staffed by a ‘resource teacher’.

A cautionary note about the cluster approach is needed concerning distances from school, scheduling of teachers’ access to resource centres, and the quality and scope of support (Irvine and Harvey 2010). However, a CFS cluster approach incorporating a peacebuilding dimension opens up the prospect of networks that cross community lines through which teachers can collectively address the quality of the learning process in their classroom. It also opens the prospect


of exploring ways of reducing inter-community tension through the schools, joint reconciliation and friendship-building processes, strategies for developing child participation in school and community, and initiatives for building inter-school cooperation. There may be considerable benefits accruing from placing children and youth at the core of cluster activities with an inter-community and cross-community role.

So far, the idea of involving children as resource persons in peace-oriented teacher training, a potentially startling form of child peace advocacy, remains at the level of unrealized aspiration.

5.2 Situation analysis (SitAn) [peacebuilding latent]

Situation analysis (SitAn) plays an important role in the planning of all UNICEF-assisted country programmes, in developing national and sub-national capacity, and in shaping national policymaking processes in order to realize children’s and women’s rights (UNICEF 2012e). Education sector situation analysis specifically focuses on the analysis of gaps and opportunities regarding achievement of overall quality of education (UNICEF 2012a). Conflict-sensitive situation analysis has the potential to influence government policies, national education plans and education cluster work.

Conflict analysis, the systematic study of the background and history, causes, actors and dynamics of conflict, is a fundamental component in the design of strategies and interventions for conflict-sensitive and peacebuilding education. The UNICEF PBEA proposes conflict analysis at five levels – children/school, community, UNICEF education programmes, education sector and national – to be undertaken in a context-appropriate sequence and manner (UNICEF 2011c).

Both SitAn and conflict analysis inform the design of CFS interventions. These analyses should be approached in a blended, complementary way since, as UNICEF notes, the “principal entry point for linking conflict analysis to the UNICEF country programme is the Situation Analysis” (UNICEF 2012c, 16). Some elements of conflict analysis are addressed within ‘Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of Children’s and Women’s Rights’ (UNICEF 2012e). It suggests, among other things, that the process of developing a situation analysis should “address the current or potential presence of emergency risks, including conflict, disaster risk, and other potential shocks; the likelihood of their occurrence, the underlying vulnerabilities, the nature of the hazard and the particularly vulnerable groups that will be affected. The capacities and coping mechanisms of families, communities, local institutions to mitigate these risks and deal with shocks should also be assessed” (5).

Embedding different aspects of conflict analysis in national- and sub-national-level situation analysis in the way suggested will enable CFS programming to acquire a stronger peacebuilding orientation. It also offers a circumspect, tangential approach to conflict analysis in contexts where the terminology of ‘peace’ and ‘conflict’ is highly sensitive. Since conflict analysis creates an opportunity to engage with diverse stakeholders and to build shared contextual understanding, bringing together diverse groups (in terms of ethnicity, religion, age and gender) into the analysis process and listening to their voices are potentially critical planks in building social cohesion. A SitAn team that crosses community divides can represent a significant, high-profile modelling of cohesion.

It is important that, within the SitAn process, channels exist – and are seen to exist – for findings from, for instance, school self-assessments and school-based monitoring and evaluation that include student contributions to be fed upward to the national level.


5.3 Multi-sector, multi-level and partnership approaches [peacebuilding resonant]

Child-friendly models commonly employ a multi-sector (or inter-sector) approach as the best means of addressing children’s needs comprehensively (UNICEF 2009a). Based on the priorities of the country, different sectors such as education, health, water, sanitation, nutrition and social affairs are brought together to cooperate, with education serving as the leading sector.

For instance, in Mozambique, under the leadership of the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministries of Health, Women, Social Action, and Public Work as well as the National Communication Institute collaborated on CFS development, with a multi-sector, four-year minimum, quality package being designed to take forward CFS implementation (UNICEF ESARO 2009).

CFS models also employ a multi-level (or socioecological) approach including capacity building at national, sub-national and school/community levels. Some countries work at all levels systematically from the outset of the CFS initiative, for example, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (UNICEF 2009c, 2011e). Others prioritize initiatives at the national/policy level and roll out the initiative in a top-downward manner, as seen in the United Republic of Tanzania’s development and enactment of CFS national minimum standards (UNICEF ESARO 2009). Yet others adopt a more grass-roots approach spreading outward and upward from the local level, for example, Nicaragua and Sri Lanka (UNICEF 2009d, 2009e).

Overlapping the multi-sector and multi-level approaches to some extent, CFS models employ a partnership approach. A strategic partnership with other United Nations or donor organizations, national and international non-governmental organizations and civil society organizations is brought together to support CFS implementation. In Eritrea, a multi-sectorial and multi-partner approach has been employed to develop a definition and indicators for child-friendly schools, to draw up a results/logical framework matrix and monitoring and evaluation framework, and to conduct a baseline study. Ethiopia’s joint programming and strategic partnerships between government, United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations has been beneficial in terms of resource sharing and scaling up the CFS model (UNICEF ESARO 2009).

All the approaches discussed in this section are pertinent to conflict sensitivity and peacebuilding. They can be effective in dealing with the multidimensional – political, security, social, economic – challenges of peacebuilding, which require partnerships between diverse stakeholder groups representing government, civil society and the United Nations system as well as a range of other international and national players (UNICEF 2012c). Creating sustainable peace also calls for a transformation in relationships at all societal levels, community to national. Partnerships for change that cross ethnic and other divides can, through their role modelling of positive and purposeful inter-group collaboration, have a signal effect on child, youth, school and community perceptions.

5.4 National policy and framework development [peacebuilding gap<>latent]

Changes proposed and created through CFS initiatives need to be backed by strong national and regional policy commitments and accountability mechanisms (UNICEF 2009a). Working with government authorities to embed nationally identified CFS principals, criteria and/or standards into national or sub-national policy frameworks, legislation and structures has been one of the key strategies of CFS system-wide initiatives around the world. Depending on the context and priorities


of the country, implementation can involve focused targeting or be broader in scope. As an example of focused targeting, Uganda took forward development of the national ‘Gender in Education Policy’ through the CFS approach (UNICEF 2010e). In Thailand, by contrast, CFS concepts were integrated into the national structures in the form of school and student standards, teacher education, curriculum reform, supervisor training, and monitoring and supervision standards. CFS indicators were also integrated into internal and external quality assurance instruments and mechanisms (UNICEF 2009f).

The ‘School Without Violence’ programme in Serbia (box 14) worked at national policy, school and community levels from the outset, and violence prevention mechanisms were institutionalized and part of a systemic whole.


In Serbia, years of transition linked with sanctions, wars, and political and economic crises have negatively impacted on the quality of school life while increasing a tolerance of violence. Violence among and against children at school is not a new phenomenon in the country and had been swept under the carpet for a long time. In 2005, UNICEF started the School Without Violence programme as a response to a Serbian public survey revealing that education and rising violence at school were among the biggest public concerns. The goal was to prevent and reduce violence among and against children in schools by creating, enabling and stimulating safe school environments and proactive local communities for children.

Research conducted as an initial activity of the programme found that 65 per cent of children responded in the affirmative when asked if they were affected by some kind of violent behaviour at school; 22 per cent of students said they had experienced some form of violence from adults at school. The most common forms of violence were teasing, name-calling, gossiping and intimidation. Physical violence was also common, especially among boys. A significant number of children were both acting violently and having violence done to them.93

Establishing a high-level steering committee led by the Ministry of Education and involving various governmental sectors (e.g., health, social policy, police, youth and sports) up to the highest (ministerial) level was a critical initial step in securing inter-sectorial coordination and collaboration at all levels.94

The programme addressed verbal, physical, psychological and social violence at school. It employed a ‘whole school response’ approach that emphasized active roles for all school stakeholders (children, teachers, head teachers, other school staff, parents and local community members). The project’s aim was not only to raise awareness but also to foster an attitude of ‘zero-tolerance towards violence’ while teaching practical skills to resolve conflict constructively. A trained adult called the ‘mentor’ helped each school tailor its programme according to context and needs. The mentor also gave training to school stakeholders and supported implementation and monitoring processes.95

At the school level, the programme generally included the following components:

➢ Conducting research on violence at the school; sharing research results with all school stakeholders; integrating findings into the school prevention plan.

Box 14. Serbia: ‘School without Violence’ Programme


➢ Training teachers and other school staff members on constructive communication, open dialogue, conflict management, their respective roles in violence prevention and restitution, positive discipline and classroom management; creation of protective networks.

➢ Helping students identify different kinds of violence, reject violence and bullying as a mode of behaviour, and create and activate peer protection teams.

➢ Training parents and enabling them be involved in violence prevention activities.

➢ Promoting collaboration with the local community, business sector and media.

➢ Establishing institutional mechanisms to support violence prevention and non-violent behaviours.96

To promote positive behaviours as ‘cool’ for students, a school-based campaign was launched using the slogan “ti si faca” (you are cool). Receiving badges of different colours symbolizing desirable behaviours such as friendliness, solidarity, fair play and respect for difference from their peers motivated students to take affirmative action. A series of sports events were used to promote fair play behaviours in sports, school and life.97


By 2010, the programme was implemented in 197 primary and secondary schools, approximately 12 per cent of all schools in the country, and 101 schools had received certification recognizing successful implementation. All programme schools created external protective networks in the wider school environment, involving municipal authorities, media, police, social welfare centres, health centres, parents and associations of citizens. School and local networks organized a number of events for children and adolescents, such as ‘Forum Theatre’ meetings, ‘Fair-Play’ sports tournaments and ‘Violence Free’ weekends. Newly introduced school rules aligning with the programme have generally been availed of, with an estimated 73 per cent of

teachers reporting that they use them. Peer teams are functioning in 80 per cent of schools.98 A 2009 UNICEF programme evaluation revealed gains in awareness of and sensitivity to violence among school-based stakeholders; staff motivation behind violence prevention; children’s capacity and preparedness to report on violence and use constructive methods to handle violence; a sense of safety among school-based stakeholders; and school capacity for violence prevention. According to the evaluation, violent incidents at school had been reduced, especially among younger children.99

At the policy level, the main components of School without Violence have been incorporated in the relevant education legislation, protocols, action plans, standards and indicators – including the Special Protocol for the Protection of Children from Abuse and Neglect in Education Institutions and the Ministry of Education’s Education Action Plan for Prevention of Violence in Educational Institutions. The project triggered changes in the law on education. Regional Ministry of Education offices have appointed coordinators for the prevention of violence. Their role is to apply new legislation, support and monitor school-based initiatives and liaise with Centers for Social Work.100

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: A whole-school approach to violent-free schooling; institutionalizing violence-prevention mechanisms both at the national policy level and the local school level; activating involvement of all school stakeholders; promoting ‘fair-play’ behaviours using sports; peer-to-peer engagement; creating supportive networks both within the school and in the surrounding community; and addressing basic emotional needs such as security, effectiveness and control.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Initiative across sectors at the macro-systemic and exo-systemic levels, systematically followed through at school (micro-system) level and embedded in policy, legislation and governance structures at the national and sub-national (macro) level.


An underdeveloped dimension of system-wide child-friendly education is that of children and youth participating in policy dialogue and advocacy. To optimize peacebuilding potential, arenas and channels need to be established to enable this to happen. In the ‘Violence Against Children’ project led by Save the Children and Plan International in West Africa, trained youth and children were involved in regional and national advocacy efforts to address violence against children, using various media and public platforms (see synoptic case study 12). In the case of the ‘Education for Social Cohesion’ programme in Sri Lanka (box 15), schoolchildren, together with their teachers, were consulted through participatory workshops, as a way of informing the National Policy on Education for Social Cohesion and Peace.


The Sri Lankan Civil War lasted 26 years. Fought between the separatist Tamil Tigers calling for an independent Tamil state in the north and east of the island and the Sri Lankan Government, it lasted from 1983 until 2009, when the insurgency was defeated.

Since 2005, the Education for Social Cohesion (ESC) project has involved a partnership between the funding organization, GIZ (German Development Cooperation), and the Sri Lankan Ministry of Education. The project’s aim is to implement educational measures and psychosocial support mechanisms enabling “school students and young people, their families, and their local communities to coexist peacefully in a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual society.”101

ESC operates at three levels within the Sri Lankan education system. At the policy level, it advises the Ministry of Education, where it has office space. It first helped conduct a situation analysis to establish the landscape of exiting activities and agencies involved in social cohesion and peace education, locating initiatives within the following areas: language, textbooks, democratic participation, human and child rights, understanding national conflict, non-violent conflict resolution, peace schools and whole school culture, environment and critical media education. It then engaged stakeholders in constructing a framework and content for an Education for Social Cohesion and

Peace (ESCP) curriculum and on what should be learned in a ‘Peace School’. Importantly, school students and their teachers were also consulted through participatory workshops. The resultant National Policy on Education for Social Cohesion and Peace, published in 2008, laid out key strategic areas and identified levels and sites of responsibility, e.g., Ministry of Education, colleges of education, teachers’ centres, provincial officers, universities, schools).102

At the provincial level, the project has worked with provincial ministries of education, the 17 teacher training colleges and 92 local centres providing in-service training for teachers. At the local level, it is working on the efficacy of new learning and teaching materials at 200 pilot schools and also supports the development of a community-based psychosocial support network for schools and families.103

The ESC programme has five strands: peace and values education (curricular and co-curricular); training in a second national language (Sinhala or Tamil); education for disadvantaged children and youth; psychosocial care and counselling; and disaster risk management and education. The first emphasizes peace as about intercultural and interfaith understanding; the second is directed at developing inter-ethnic understanding through shared language competence; the third is directed towards addressing the grievances and frustrations of those who might be radicalized; the fourth attempts to heal the traumas of civil war and the

Box 15. Sri Lanka: Education for Social Cohesion


5.5 National team [peacebuilding latent]

To orchestrate and facilitate system-wide CFS implementation, some countries have established a CFS national team. For instance, the Macedonian CFS team, consisting of personnel from the Ministry of Education and Science and experts in child rights and in child-centred education (the number of members in the team and criteria for their inclusion is not known) developed the national CFS framework and outcome indicators based on an analysis of CFS experiences and documentation against baseline research that had been undertaken. The national team supported the pilot school implementation, liaising closely with school steering committees and working groups established in each pilot school (UNICEF 2009c). In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, a core working group was created within the Department of Primary and Pre-Primary Education (again, the number of the team and the criteria for selection are not clear). Their responsibilities included planning and monitoring; providing training and supervision; developing technical materials, guidelines and policy-related documents; and coordinating within the department as well as with provincial and district education offices (UNICEF 2011e).

The national core team model carries significant potential for weaving peacebuilding into national CFS initiatives. The potential can be realized by, first, threading elements connected to building

culture of violence in home and community; the fifth is about developing children’s knowledge and skills so they are more resilient in the face of natural disaster and community strife.


While the National Policy has been adopted, it has not been converted into a National Action Plan. On the other hand, its existence has provided an umbrella of legitimation for continued development by bodies downstream of the Ministry.104 The 17 teacher training colleges have programmes in place that combine disaster risk reduction education, peace and values education, bilingual education and support teaching for disadvantaged students. Courses in education for social cohesion and peace are also offered out of the 92 local in-service training centres. Curriculum, learning and teaching materials have been developed. More than 5,000 school students and trainee teachers have taken part in bilateral peace education programmes between a specific school and a teacher training college and other special co-curricular events.105

While ESC is making significant inroads, the depth of the change remains open to debate. Case study

evaluations in 2011 and 2012 found that, while ESC has performed well, for instance, in developing interactive learning materials and in securing take-up of child-centred methodologies, there is over-focusing on soft concepts such as harmony as well as the softer interpersonal zone rather than on conflict analysis and societal conflict resolution. Intercultural work, including student exchanges, has often tended to emphasis cultural difference rather than having students cluster around what they share in common or around working together on a common project.106

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Child-friendly ethic embedded from policymaking to local school level; children participating in national policy development; child-centred interactive learning; psychosocial care and counselling; and addressing basic emotional needs such as a positive sense of identity.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Initial macro-systemic policy support for the initiative has faltered with the failure to put in place a national action plan, but this has not held back teacher training institutions and schools from using policy legitimization to take the initiative forward at the exo-systemic and micro-systemic levels.


social cohesion and democratic participation into the team remit and by, second, ensuring representation of diverse ethnic, minority and social groups, men and women equally, and also representation of the younger generation. To achieve this, the development of inclusive criteria for membership would be a significant step. The national team can itself model peaceful coexistence.

5.6 Monitoring and evaluation [peacebuilding latent]

As discussed in subsection 4.5.2, school-level monitoring and evaluation is key to the dynamic unfolding of the CFS vision of the self-improving school, with emphasis on the full engagement of all stakeholders. Macro-systemic-level monitoring and evaluation is also considered vital in ensuring the scaling up and mainstreaming of child-friendly schooling across the education system. At this level, according to the CFS manual, “adherence to technical evaluation standards is critical to ensure the credibility of presented evidence” with the evaluation done “by specialists who are largely at ‘arm’s length’ from the groups involved in designing, implementing and advocating for the CFS models.” The manual does not elaborate how the ‘scientific’ M&E process undertaken at a national level and the more ‘participatory’ M&E approach adopted at a community level are to be interfaced. At the national level, however, it is insistent that “child-friendly principles and issues are fully incorporated into the design of the evaluation” (UNICEF 2009a, 8:14).

The finding of the Global Evaluation Report is that CFS monitoring and evaluation at a national level remains generally ad hoc and haphazard and that “UNICEF should strengthen its monitoring and evaluation of CFS by systematically collecting data on key indicators of basic education access and quality from schools that it supports” (UNICEF 2009b, 135).

Clearly, there is much still to be ironed out in terms of systematic national monitoring and evaluation of child-friendly schools. From a CFS peacebuilding perspective, three aspects are important. First, every effort needs to be made to form national monitoring teams representative of different groups, including both females and males. Second, criteria relating to peacebuilding, such as conflict risk reduction, inter-group reconciliation, social cohesion and democracy, need to be integrated into CFS M&E tools. To assess the peacebuilding quality in CFS initiatives in the field, CFS for peacebuilding standards and indicators (see appendix 2) have been developed as part of this research. The standards and indicators can be used as a M&E tool to examine whether child-friendly schools are moving in the direction of increased peacebuilding relevance and support; as a discussion and reflection tool for school-based stakeholders planning for continuous improvement; or as a programme audit/internal review tool for UNICEF officers strategizing a CFS programme for peacebuilding.

Finally, national-level monitoring and evaluation needs to integrate children’s voices more rigorously and systematically. Engaging children in M&E processes, especially in conflict-affected contexts, is a challenging task. But by employing child-friendly tools enabling meaningful child participation (and that involve an exciting learning experience) a significant child contribution to monitoring and evaluation can be readily achieved, as highlighted in the Save the Children example (box 16).



Northern Uganda has been blighted for more than two decades by civil insurrection waged by the cult-like Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) with tens of thousands killed and 1.5 million people displaced. Abduction of children to serve as sex slaves and fighters by the LRA is common, as is mutilation of children by cutting off lips, noses and ears. In 2003 a United Nations official described the humanitarian situation in northern Uganda as “worse than in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.”106 In recent years, the LRA has spread its insurgency to neighbouring countries.107

The 2008 Save the Children ‘Global Thematic Evaluation and Documentation of Children’s Participation in Armed Conflict, Post Conflict and Peace Building’ undertook a study of Gulu District, in northern Uganda.108 The study examined the involvement of girls and boys in eight primary and secondary school peace clubs and four out-of-school community associations; 1,171 children, youth and adults took part, including in- and out-of-school boys and girls, children with disabilities, formerly abducted children, child mothers and orphans.

The thematic evaluation employed a range of child-friendly participatory tools, enabling children and young people to participate meaningfully in, and also help steer, the evaluation process. Children and young people learned how to use the tools in workshops, with representatives attending on a rotational basis from each club and association before they returned to facilitate use of the tools with other members, as well as other children in their school and community. Using the tools not only served the purposes of evaluation, unearthing examples of child-centred learning already in evidence, but also involved children and youth in participatory learning and data gathering approaches entirely replicable within peacebuilding learning programmes. These, and similar, activities offer springboards for discussion and, ultimately, child/

youth participation in peacebuilding. Evaluation/learning modalities included:

• Tree analysis: Mixed- or single-gender groups of children/youth drew a picture of a tree with roots, branches and a connecting trunk. Using the roots, they wrote in the root causes of the northern Ugandan conflict; using the branches, they identified its effects. The connecting trunk symbolizes the conflict itself.

• Body mapping: Groups of children/youth used large body maps to analyse their experiences of conflict and post-conflict in relation to their bodies. Examples: heart – bad feelings, revenge, forgiveness, pierced by a knife, depressed, desire for peace to end the conflict; eyes – seeing bad things such as fighting, death of loved ones and poverty, crying lots of tears; feet/legs – landmines, running, truancy, kneeling to pray.

• Peace visions: Children/youth drew ‘smiley faces’ and wrote down their visions of a future, resettled peace; also, they drew downturned faces, alongside which they wrote their anxieties and fears concerning the fragility possible disruption of any future peace.

• Peacebuilding balloon: Using a graphic of a hot air balloon, children identified the components of peacebuilding including who is involved, which children should participate, and factors enabling and preventing peacebuilding or children’s involvement in peacebuilding (see illustration on page 80).

• Peace album: Children/youth create a collection of poems, texts, newspaper cuttings and drawings capturing their conflict and post-conflict experiences.110

Forms of child participation arising out of the peace clubs and associations, as elicited by the evaluation process, include: child participation in radio shows; charity work in camps for internally displaced people and within their own communities; conscious role modelling of peaceful behaviours and

Box 16. Uganda: Child-Friendly Learning and Evaluation Tools

u


practices (living by example), acting as mediators for community reconciliation; sharing experiences with other schools; and working in the community to sensitize people to the rights of abducted children and those with disabilities. Children and youth also engaged with district-level advisory committees that were set up to guide the Thematic Evaluation and air their views on peace-pertinent issues and the evaluation process itself.111


The Thematic Evaluation Summary Report makes abundantly clear that engaging children and youth in participatory evaluation processes, especially in contexts where participatory learning and community engagement are prominent features, can bring twofold benefits: first, it fosters heightened levels of child/youth commitment and engagement; second, it enriches the quality of the evaluation by ensuring that the views of the most important stakeholder groups are taken into full account. As described in the report, “A diversity of child friendly participatory tools at the disposal of children and young people

creates opportunities for them to independently explore together and generate ideas from their own perspectives on issues directly affecting them and how these can be overcome.” Most of the tools are suitable for children aged 8 and over, as well as young people and adults, and can be adapted to facilitate analysis and decision making.112

Child-friendly peacebuilding aspects of this initiative: Employing interactive, participatory learning that incorporates socio-emotional learning; engaging children and youth as evaluation partners and giving children and youth a voice in the steerage of evaluation processes; developing critical and independent learning; peer learning; and addressing basic emotional needs such as comprehension of reality, independence and autonomy, and transcendence.

The initiative through a socioecological lens: Participation of children at micro-systemic and exo-systemic levels, feeding into richer evaluation-informed policy and action decision making at a macro-system level.

Example of a peacebuilding balloon (Save the Children 2008, 20)


CSF dimension

Peacebuilding gap



System-wide CFS

Section 5 Summary table

Multi-sector, multi-level and partnership

approaches

Professional development

Situation analysis

National Team

M&E

National policy and framework development


Below, briefly summarized, are some considerations that from a peacebuilding perspective might make a child-friendly school conflict insensitive, slow the momentum of change or render the school susceptible to harm by those of mal-intent.

Non-prescriptive framework: CFS thinking makes a benefit of leaving it up to schools and jurisdictions to determine what elements within a broad framework they pick up and what concrete steps they take. The assumption is that whatever is first developed will inexorably spread out to cover the full spectrum of CFS principles and dimensions. But choices made and decisions taken may lack contextual conflict sensitivity. Skewed and selective adoption of the approach may produce negative effects. For example, an initial emphasis on and drive for quality child-centred education alongside a less-than-wholehearted approach to inclusiveness may foster a sense of being left outside on the part of some groups. The loose framework may, in some contexts and after some initial momentum, result in CFS initiatives becoming fragmented and ‘losing steam’ with negative repercussions on community perceptions.

School and teacher selection: There are dangers of fomenting disharmony and jealousies through the choice of schools and teachers to participate in CFS initiatives. The choice of ‘model’ schools as beacons of good practice can lead to their being perceived as beacons of privilege. CFS teacher education opportunities are rarely, if ever, evenly distributed across all teachers in that those opportunities are often project-driven, donor-driven or based on limited funds. So, choices are made, and a sense of unfairness and grievance can easily arise. If choices seem to fall along existing divisions, and there are no transparent criteria prior to choices being made, no clear benefits for all and no clear strategies to scale up or spread the benefit, good intentions can become a source of grievance and inter-group tension.

Critical education in non-conducive contexts: An emphasis on critical thinking, especially critical media literacy, and on enhancing learners’ competencies for constructive patriotism and active ‘bystandership’ may be distinctly unwelcome in non-democratic, pseudo-democratic and transitional political contexts. Scrutinizing, questioning and unpacking the words of authority, as represented in texts, newspapers and other media, will not be easily countenanced and may lead to censorship, repression and rolling back of programmes, with attendant dangers to students, teachers and schools.

Democratic participation and voice in ‘unripe’ contexts: In particular cultural contexts, adult-initiated child participation may be applauded but child democratic participation might be perceived as outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour. Organized school democracy working within approved parameters and channelled into status quo non-critical areas may be acceptable, as might teacher-initiated student participation in good works around the school. On the other hand, an approach that empowers students to speak their minds, challenge what they see as unfair, discriminatory or

Risks and vulnerabilities

Section 6


wrong, and call for change may be perceived as threatening to those with authority and unacceptable within cultural norms. Negotiated curriculum, child engagement in school improvement and assessment, and child-led participation in and mobilization of school and community change may be seen as threatening – especially as these activities touch upon the causes and consequences of conflict, eliciting reactionary, anti-school and anti-learning responses. It may be very difficult for children to have a voice in contexts where there is no tradition of children speaking up in their own right and on their own behalf. Children evincing active citizenship qualities and dispositions may become targets.

Risksincommunityparticipationinpost-conflictcontexts: In the aftermath of conflict, a local community can be a dangerous place with ever-present physical risk. Student participation in community enquiry and action projects may well have to take place in restricted ‘safe’ areas, at safer times of day, with pre-arrangement with the community and intensive adult protection and supervision. Employing social and broadcast media for change advocacy may pose less risk.

Possibility of new concepts of citizenship eliciting anger of ‘blind’ patriots: Learning that opens up the idea of people being plural and parallel citizens who possess multiple identities and allegiances, raises the prospect of citizens criticizing policies and practices of their group and country that are contrary to humane values, and builds caring and nurturing attitudes to those who do not belong to their own group raises the prospect of a backlash against schools, teachers and students for fostering disloyalty.

Riskofcommunityparticipationbeingconflictinsensitiveandnegatingpeacebuildingefforts: Engaging parents and community members is important but can be counterproductive if adults bring the prejudices and fixed positions of the past, as well as current conflict-stoking ideologies, into the school and into other arenas of dialogue where children are present. The principal and teaching staff need to be ready and equipped to negotiate such occurrences. There is always the danger that the school’s invitation to participate is readily picked up by some groups and not by others, with the risk of fomenting further alienation. There is also the danger of disruption by ideologically motivated groups.

Disappointment, disillusionment and frustration: Success at the local level in building inclusiveness and participatory democracy may well come more quickly than at the national level, spreading disillusion, especially among impatient youth. Young people may expect that because their ideas have been sought and expressed they will automatically be listened to and immediately acted upon. But they are likely to find that this does not happen. Without careful management of expectations, young people may become frustrated and fall prey to extremist voices.

Sensitivities around ‘peacebuilding’: Where bitterness and entrenched opinions are still rife, and healing and restoration has not happened, there are pitfalls in using peace-related terminology for describing and taking forward proposed educational reforms. To avoid the counterproductive use of terminology, a tangential or indirect descriptor and approach may need to be used. For instance, a skills-oriented curriculum can allow for peace skills such as reflective thinking, decision making, consensus building and problem solving to be developed without recourse to the lexicon of peace.

Non-peaceful application of ‘peacebuilding’ skills: Children and youth empowered through peacebuilding programmes may use their newly acquired skills (e.g., advocacy skills) to support violent political movement due to frustrations stemming from intractable conflict-affected situations. Armed groups may see children and youth trained in change agency and advocacy as attractive candidates for recruitment, and child and youth readiness to address the root causes of conflict may be manipulated by armed groups.


General

• The CFS principle of inclusiveness needs to be seen to go beyond ensuring access to schooling (the ‘inclusivity of presence’) to a proactively inclusive approach in which all children consistently experience a sense that they belong and that what they are and what they bring is valued (the ‘inclusivity of belonging’).

• The CFS principle of democratic participation needs to be taken beyond the forms of participation framed and handed down by adults (child followership) to forms of participation in which children play a significant part in determining the nature, scope and directions of their participation (child leadership).

• The CFS principle of protection needs to more fully embrace the concept of security as it applies to persons, buildings, communities and inter-community dynamics, environments and territories.

School culture and ethos

• The child-friendly school needs to evolve into a zone of peace and a community hub for peace, with active community, parental, child and other stakeholder involvement in a ‘whole school within whole community’ response to social cohesion and resilience building and appropriate behaviours being enshrined in a stakeholder-developed and periodically reviewed code of conduct.

• Greater emphasis needs to be placed within child-friendly schooling on child-to-child and child-managed mechanisms for handling violence and conflict, such as use of sharing circles, peer juries and peer mediation.

• A proactive culture of inclusion means ensuring that the voice and narrative of all groups are clearly present in curriculum and learning processes and in arenas established for dialogue and decision making.

Curriculum

• To make a more purposive and intentional contribution to building peace, CFS curriculum proposals for human rights, democracy, diversity and social justice need to be more sharply

Section 7

Recommendations for making the child-friendly school more peacebuilding resonant in conflict-affected contexts


delineated and finely detailed, especially as child-friendly education moves into the secondary-school age range.

• In age-appropriate ways, CFS curriculum development needs an expressly positive peace orientation in which the fundamental drivers of injustice, inequality and conflict are addressed.

• The CFE promotion of life skills education presents a ‘low hanging fruit’ opportunity for peacebuilding curriculum that should be seized.

• Child-friendly education would greatly benefit from a through-the-grades, systematic articulation of learning outcomes, including themes and topics designed to realize those outcomes, within which there should be a systematic peacebuilding dimension.

• In the name of participatory democracy, opportunities for child-negotiated curricula should be more fully engaged with.

Concepts of citizenship

• Child-friendly education needs more ‘root-and-branch’ engagement with concepts of citizenship that acknowledge and celebrate diversity and difference and that open up and interrogate issues and dilemmas surrounding notions of identity, pluralism, allegiance, loyalty and solidarity.

• In treatment of ‘citizenship,’ child-friendly education should build from its focus on the development of life skills and pro-social attitudes to foster capacities, skills and dispositions of and for resilience, active ‘bystandership’ and constructive patriotism.

Learning and teaching

• Relatively unused child-friendly and child-centred pedagogies of significant peacebuilding potential such as experiential, action and ‘imaginal’ learning should be more fully drawn upon and developed in the child-friendly school.

• There should be more studied and systematic application of cooperative learning within CFE pedagogic approaches, not least because of the positive benefits for peacebuilding.

• Within its broader canvas of concern for the socio-emotional well-being of the child, a purposeful effort should be made in child-friendly education in conflict-affected areas to systematically embed socio-emotional dimensions (including self-esteem building) into the learning process.

• Critical media literacy should figure centrally in child-friendly education if it is to foster skills and dispositions for active bystandership and constructive patriotism.

• A ‘futures’ learning orientation is vital if child-friendly education is to be truly child-centred, and it is equally vital if child-friendly education is to help foster a transformative vision of peace.

Student participation at school

• Child participation under child-friendly education, currently weighted towards carrying out adult- framed tasks, should take on a significantly more proactive, consultative and change-intentional orientation in the name of peacebuilding.

• Formal school representative forums established under the CFS principle of democratic participation should take on an inclusion, social justice, social cohesion, conflict resolution and reconciliation agenda.


• Wherever there is a culture of school clubs, clubs should be utilized as a means of building inter-group collaboration, understanding and harmony.

Student participation in/with the community

• CFS emphasis on school-community links should be put to good advantage by giving students opportunities to collaborate in partnerships and initiatives directed at restoring harmony and rebuilding social cohesion.

• Students should undertake both enquiry projects aimed at understanding community conflict and action projects for change and community renewal.

• Peace-promoting media projects should be promoted as offering very exciting and relatively safe channels for effecting change.

School as a learning organization

• CFS practice in school self-assessment, monitoring and evaluation, and school improvement planning should engage all groups and sides of a divided community in determining consensual priorities and new directions.

• CFS school self-assessment and monitoring-and-evaluation tools and frameworks should be reworked to include a conflict analysis dimension.

• Children should be given a role and voice in school self-assessment, monitoring and evaluation, and school improvement planning.

Professional development

• Existing CFS teacher education programmes should be revised to include a significant peacebuilding dimension including key concepts, notions of citizenship and the good citizen, the forms of learning identified under the recommendations for ‘Learning and teaching’ above and means of promoting student participatory democracy and inter-group harmony in the classroom, school and community.

System-wide

• Conflict analysis should be embedded in UNICEF situation analyses.

• CFS national teams and multi-sector, multi-level and partnership approaches should include representation from all groups in divided, conflict-affected communities and should model positive and purposeful inter-group collaboration. The teams should be further developed to link up with and take further effective school-based initiatives.

• CFS policy development at the national and sub-national levels should include a peacebuilding stance, with channels established for receiving the opinions and perspectives of those at the local level, including children.

• National and sub-national CFS monitoring and evaluation processes should be representative of diverse groups, work with peace-oriented criteria – concerning, for instance, social cohesion and acceptance of diversity – and integrate children’s voices, opinions and perspectives.


Alexander, Jessica, Neil Boothby and Mike Wessells. 2010. ‘Education and Protection of Children and Youth Affected by Armed Conflict: An Essential Link’. In Protecting Education from Attack: A State-of-the-Art Review, 55–70. Paris: UNESCO.

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Alternatives. 2013a. ‘Peer Jury’. www.alternativesyouth.org/restorative_justice/peer-jury.

Alternatives. 2013b. ‘Peer Mediation’. www.alternativesyouth.org/restorative_justice/peer-mediation.

Back, Emma, Catherine Cameron and Thomas Tanner. 2009. ‘Children and Disaster Risk Reduction: Taking Stock and Moving Forward’. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies and Children in a Changing Climate.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bush, Kenneth D., and Diana Saltarelli. 2000. ‘The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding Education for Children’. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

Butterfly Peace Garden. 2011. http://butterflypeacegarden.org.

Cabezudo, Alicia, and Magnus Haavelsrud. 2013. ‘Rethinking Peace Education’. JournalofConflictology 4 (1): 3–13.

Center for Peace Education. 2013. www.peaceedu.org.

Davies, Lynn. 2009a. ‘Educating against Extremism: Towards a Critical Politicisation of Young People’. International Review of Education 55: 183–203.

Davies, Lynn. 2009b. ‘The Hidden Crisis: Armed Conflict and Education: Thinkpiece on Education and Conflict’. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001907/190778e.pdf.

Davies, Lynn. 2013. ‘Teaching about Violent Extremism and Religion’. New York: Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies. www.ineesite.org/en/discuss/teaching-about-violent-extremism-and-religion.

Dürr, Karlheinz. 2005. ‘The School: A Democratic Learning Community; The All-European Study on Pupils’ Participation in School’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. http://62.217.125.52/coe/archive/files/35cb2393598274b5299bdb6f1087699a.pdf.

Galtung, Johan. 1969. ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’. Journal of Peace Research 6 (3): 177–191.

Galtung, Johan. 1976. ‘Three Approaches to Peace: Peace Keeping, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding’. In Peace, War and Defense: Essays in Peace Research, edited by Johan Galtung, 282–304. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers.

Galtung, Johan. 1996. PeacebyPeacefulMeans:PeaceandConflict,DevelopmentandCivilization. London: Sage Publications.

Global Education Cluster. 2012a. ‘Booklet 6: Education for Building Peace, Protecting Education in Conflict Affected by Conflict Series’. http://education.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/Cluster%20booklet%206%20-%20Education%20for%20Buidling%20Peace_0.pdf.

References


Global Education Cluster. 2012b. ‘Protecting Education in Countries Affected by Conflict Series’. http://education.humanitarianresponse.info/resources/protecting-education-countries-affected-conflict.

Greig, S., G. Pike and D. Selby. 1989. Greenprints for Changing Schools. London: WWF/Kogan Page.

Hirschinger-Blank, Nancy, Lori Simons, Gregory L. Volz, Raymond Thompson, Laura Finely and Joseph Cleary. 2009. ‘A Pilot Assessment of a School-Based Youth Court in a Resource-Poor African-American Urban School District: Lessons Learned from Youth Court Volunteers’. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 60 (2): 31–47.

IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee). 2007. ‘IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychological Support in Emergency Settings’. Geneva: IASC.

INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies). 2010. ‘Guidance Notes on Teaching and Learning’. New York: INEE. http://www.ineesite.org/eietrainingmodule/cases/learningistheirfuture/pdf/INEE_Guidance_Notes_on_Teaching_and_Learning_EN.pdf.

INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies). 2013. ‘INEE Guidance Note on Conflict Sensitive Education’. New York: INEE. http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/INEE_GN_on_Conflict_Sensitive_Education.pdf.

Irvine, Jim, and Christopher Harvey. 2010. ‘Final Draft Set of Child Friendly Schools Standards and Indicators for Teacher Education: A Synthesis and Self-Evaluation Tool’. Commonwealth of Learning. www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/CFS_Std_Indicators_TESep30_2010%20_4_.pdf.

Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 1999. ‘Making Cooperative Learning Work’. Theory into Practice 38 (2): 67–73.

Johnson, D. W., and R. T. Johnson. 2005. ‘Essential Components of Peace Education’. Theory into Practice 44 (4): 280–292.

Johnson, D., and R. Johnson. Undated. ‘Introduction to Cooperative Learning: An Overview of Cooperative Learning’. www.co-operation.org/home/introduction-to-cooperative-learning.

Kagawa, Fumiyo, and David Selby. 2013. ‘Enhancing Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction for Safe Schools: Insights from Cambodia, China and Indonesia’. Bangkok: Plan International, Asia Regional Office. http://plan-international.org/files/Asia/publications/plansafeschoolsresearch.

Kellet, Mary. 2005. ‘Children as Active Researchers: A New Research Paradigm for the 21st Century?’. NCRM Methods Review Papers. NCRM1003. National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/87/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-003.pdf.

Klein, G. 1990. Reading into Racism: Bias in Children’s Literature and Learning Materials. London: Routledge.

Kotite, Phyllis. 2012. ‘Education for Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding: Meeting the Global Challenges of the 21st Century’. IIEP Occasional Paper. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Institute for Educational Planning.

Lansdown, G. 2011. ‘Every Child’s Right to Be Heard: A Resource Guide on the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 12’. London: Save the Children UK.

Lederach, J., R. Neufeldt and H. Culbertson. 2007. ‘Reflective Peacebuilding: A Planning, Monitoring, and Learning Toolkit’. http://kroc.nd.edu/sites/default/files/crs_reflective_final.pdf.

MDG Achievement Fund. 2013. ‘Final Narrative Report: Sudan; Thematic Window, Conflict Prevention’. www.mdgfund.org/sites/default/files/Sudan%20-%20CPPB%20-%20Final%20Narrative%20Report.pdf.

Miller, Vachel W., and Friedrich.W. Affolter. 2002. Helping Children Outgrow War. Technical Paper no.116, Human Resources and Democracy Division, Office of Sustainable Development, Bureau for Africa, U.S. Agency for International Development.

UNICEF Maldives. 2010. ‘Child Friendly Schools: Standards and Indicators’. Quality Indicators Child Friendly Baraabaru Schools Maldives. www.unicef.org/maldives/media_7399.htm.

Nicolai, Susan, and Carl Triplehorn. 2003. ‘The Role of Education in Protecting Children in Conflict’. Network HPN Paper. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Plan International. 2010. ‘Child Centred Disaster Risk Reduction: Building Resilience through Participation; Lessons from Plan International’. London: Plan International.


Pike, G., and D. Selby. 1988. Global Teacher, Global Learner. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Pike, G., and D. Selby. 1999. ‘Global Education: Making Basic Learning a Child-Friendly Experience’. Amman: UNICEF Middle East and North Africa Regional Office.

Pike, G., and D. Selby. 2000. In the Global Classroom 2. Toronto: Pippin.

Salm, Randall, and Clarence Shubert. 2012. ‘Literature Review of Evaluative Approaches for Education Strategies for Peacebuilding and Approach for the Evaluability Assessment of UNICEF’s Peacebuilding Education and Advocacy Programme’. Prepared for UNICEF Evaluation Office. Washington, D.C.: KonTerra Group.

Salmi, Jamil. 2000. ‘Violence, Democracy and Education: An Analytical Framework’. Human Development Department LCSHD Paper Series No. 56. World Bank, Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office. www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2000/11/10/000094946_0011010533154/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf.

Search for Common Ground. Undated. ‘Chapter 4. Indicators’. www.sfcg.org/Documents/dmechapter4.pdf.

Selby, D. 1994. ‘Kaleidoscopic Mindset: New Meanings within Citizenship Education’. Global Education 2: 20–31.

Selby, D. 2008. ‘Global Education as Sustainable Community Education: Stories from Brazil, the Middle East and Albania’. In Community, Empowerment and Sustainable Development, edited by J. Blewitt, 59–80. Totnes: Green Books.

Selby, D., and F. Kagawa. 2012. ‘Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty Countries’. Paris and Geneva: UNESCO and UNICEF. www.educationandtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Disaster-Risk-Reduction-in-School-Curricula-Case-Studies-from-Thirty-Countries-1.pdf.

Selby, D., and F. Kagawa. 2013. Selby,David and Fumiyo Kagawa. 2014. ‘Towards a Learning Culture of Safety and Resilience: Technical Guidance for Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction in the School Curriculum. Paris and Geneva: UNESCO and UNICEF. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002293/229336e.pdf

Shaeffer, Sheldon. 2013. ‘Identifying and Promoting Good Practice in Equity and Child-Friendly Education’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/cfs/files/Identifying_and_Promoting_Good_Practice_in_Equity_and_Child-Friendly_Education.pdf.

Sigsgaard, M. 2012. ‘Conflict-Sensitive Education Policy: A Preliminary Review’. Doha: Education Above All. http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/INEEcms/uploads/1150/1_Sigsgaard_2012-Sensitive.pdf.

Sinclair, M. 2010. ‘Protecting through Curriculum: A Call for Collaboration’. In Protecting Education from Attack: A State-of-the Art Review, 279–301. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Skoutajan, Stephen. 2012. ‘Defending Place-Based Education’. Green Teacher 97: 34–36.

Smith, A. 2010. ‘The Influence of Education on Conflict and Peacebuilding’. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011. www.unescocentre.ulster.ac.uk/pdfs/pdfs_alan/2010_The_influence_of_education_on_conflict_and_peace_building_Background_paper_for_EFA_GMR_2011_The_Hidden_Crisis_Armed_conflict_and_education.pdf.

Smith, A., and C. S. Ellison. 2012. ‘Youth, Education and Peacebuilding’. IIEP Policy Forum, Paris 16–18 October 2012. www.planwithyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Youth_education_Peacebuilding.pdf.

Spadacini, Beatrice M. 2013. ‘Global Mapping of Communication for Development Interventions in Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation.. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

Staub, E. 2003. The Psychology of Good and Evil: Why Children, Adults, and Groups Help and Harm Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Staub, E. 2005. ‘The Roots of Goodness: The Fulfillment of Basic Human Needs and the Development of Caring, Helping and Non-Aggression, Moral Courage, Active Bystandership, and Altruism Born of Suffering’. In Moral Motivation through the Life Span, edited by G. Cario and C. Edwards, 34–72. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Stewart, T. 2012. ‘Community-Based Service-Learning for Youth Empowerment in Palestine’. The Educational Forum 76 (1): 25–40.


Tyrrell, Jerry, and Seamus Farrell. 1995. Peer Mediation in Primary Schools. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Umar, Abdurrahman, Rebecca Kinakin and Doris McEachern. 2012. ‘Interim Report on the UNICEF-Commonwealth of Learning Child Friendly Schools Project’. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning. www.col.org/progServ/programmes/education/teachEd/Documents/Interim-Report_UNICEF-COL_Aug2012.pdf.

UN.1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. A/RES/44/25. New York: United Nations. www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm.

UN. 1992. An Agenda for Peace: Prevention Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-keeping: Report of the Secretary-General. A/47/277. New York: United Nations. www.unrol.org/doc.aspx?n=A_47_277.pdf.

UN. 2009. Report of the Secretary-General on Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict. A/63/881. New York: United Nations. www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/63/881.

UN. 2010. Women’s Participation in Peacebuilding: Report of the Secretary-General. A/65/354. New York: United Nations. www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/65/354.

UN. 2013a. The UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2014–2017: Realizing the Rights of Every Child, Especially the Most Disadvantaged. E/ICEF/2013/21. New York: United Nations.

UN. 2013b. Women and Peace and Security. S/RES/2122. New York: United Nations. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/2122

UN Peacebuilding Support Office. 2010. ‘UN Peacebuilding: An Orientation’. www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pbso/pdf/peacebuilding_orientation.pdf.

UN Peacebuilding Support Office. 2012. ‘Peace Dividends and Beyond: Contributions of Administrative and Social Services to Peacebuilding’. New York: United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/peacebuilding/pbso/pdf/peace_dividends.pdf

UNESCO. 2010. Education Under Attack. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

UNESCO IIEP and UNICEF WCARO (West and Central Africa Regional Office). 2011. ‘Integrating Conflict and Disaster Risk Reduction into Education Sector Planning (Draft)’. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Institute for Educational Planning.

UNICEF. 2004a. ‘Adolescent Programming Experiences during Conflict and Post-Conflict’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF. 2004b. ‘Child Friendly Spaces/Environments (CFS/E): An Integrated Service Strategy for Emergencies and Their Aftermath’. United Nations Children’s Fund. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/FA1830A25B25810BC125757F0037FA8E-UNICEF_dec04.pdf.

UNICEF. 2009a. ‘Child-Friendly Schools Manual’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/publications/files/Child_Friendly_Schools_Manual_EN_040809.pdf.

UNICEF. 2009b. ‘Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Report’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/Global_CFS_Evaluation_Report_Uploaded_Version.pdf.

UNICEF. 2009c. ‘Developing Child-Friendly Schools in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: A Case Study’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/education/files/CFS_MacedoniaCaseStudy_April2009.pdf.

UNICEF. 2009d. ‘Mainstreaming Child-Friendly Schools in Sri Lanka: A Case Study’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/education/files/CFSSriLankaCaseStudyJan2009.pdf.

UNICEF. 2009e. ‘Nicaragua Child-Friendly and Healthy School (CFHS) Initiative: A Case Study’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/education/files/CFS_Nicaragua_Case_Study_2009_Dec.pdf

UNICEF. 2009f. ‘UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Schools in Thailand: A Case Study’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/education/files/CFS_Case_Study_-_Thailand.pdf.

UNICEF. 2010a. ‘Child-Friendly Schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Case Study’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/education/files/BosniaandHerzegovina_CFSCaseStudty_June2010.pdf.

UNICEF. 2010b. ‘Education in Conflict and Transition Contexts: Case Studies from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nepal and South Sudan’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.


UNICEF. 2010c. ‘Progress Evaluation of the UNICEF Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition Programme (EEPCT)’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_58283.html.

UNICEF. 2010d. ‘UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Schools: Ethiopia Case Study’. Addis Ababa: UNICEF Ethiopia. www.unicef.org/education/files/FINAL_Ethiopia_CFS_Case_Study.pdf.

UNICEF. 2010e. ‘UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Schools: Uganda Case Study’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/education/files/CFS_Uganda_Case_Study_January_2010.pdf.

UNICEF. 2011a. ‘Case Study on Youth Participatory Research on Education Quality in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Innovative Practices, Lessons Learned and Recommendations’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.educationandtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/EEPCT_YouthParticipatoryResearchCaseStudy_Dec2011.pdf.

UNICEF. 2011b. ‘Child-Friendly Schools in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A Case Study’. UNICEF State of Palestine. www.unicef.org/education/files/CFS_case_study_-_Occupied_Palestinian_Territory.pdf.

UNICEF. 2011c. ‘Proposal on Peacebuilding and Education. Presented to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the Netherlands’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF. 2011d. ‘The Role of Education in Peacebuilding: Literature Review’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/education/files/EEPCT_Peacebuilding_LiteratureReview.pdf.

UNICEF. 2011e. ‘Schools of Quality: A Case Study on Rights-based Education Reform in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic’. UNICEF Lao People’s Democratic Republic. www.unicef.org/education/files/CFSCaseStudy_LaoPDR_March2011.pdf.

UNICEF. 2012a. ‘Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector: Resource Manual’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/cfs/files/UNICEF-ClimateChange-ResourceManual-lores-c.pdf.

UNICEF. 2012b. ‘Climate Change and Environmental Education’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/publications/files/CFS_Climate_E_web.pdf.

UNICEF. 2012c. ‘Conflict Sensitivity and Peacebuilding in UNICEF: Technical Note’. www.unicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs/conflict%20sensitivity/UNICEF%20Technical%20Note%20on%20Conflict%20Sensitivity%20and%20Peacebuilding[1].pdf.

UNICEF. 2012d. ‘Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition: Final Synthesis Report to the Government of the Netherlands and the European Commission’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF. 2012e. ‘Guidance on Conducting a Situation Analysis of Children’s and Women’s Rights’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF. 2012f. ‘Life Skills: Child-Friendly Schools’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_7260.html.

UNICEF. 2012g. ‘Life-Skills: Violence Prevention and Peace Building’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_violence_peace.html.

UNICEF. 2012h. ‘Theories (Assumptions) of Change: For “Education for Peacebuilding Practitioners” ’ [PowerPoint]. Draft, 19 November 2012. United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF, 2012i. ‘UNICEF and Resilience’ [Internal document]. United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF. 2013a. ‘Concept Note’. Resilience Workshop Nepal, 18–20 November 2013. United Nations Children’s Fund. http://www.unicef.org/about/employ/files/2013-08-06_KTM_Concept_Note_Resilience_Workshop_16_July.pdf

UNICEF. 2013b. ‘Evaluability Assessment of the Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy Programme’. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNICEF. 2013c. ‘Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy in Conflict-Affected Context (PBEA) Programme Results Framework and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan’ [Unpublished internal draft]. United Nations Children’s Fund.


UNICEF. 2013d. ‘Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy in Conflict-Affected Contexts Programme: 2012 Consolidated Annual Report.’ New York: United Nations Children’s Fund. www.educationandtransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PBEA-2012-Consolidated-Report-Final-Submitted-to-PARMO-17-June-20132.pdf.

UNICEF. Undated a. ‘Characteristics of a Rights-Based, Child-Friendly School’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_7260.html.

UNICEF. Undated b. ‘Child-Friendly Schools’ [PowerPoint presentation]. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_7260.html.

UNICEF EAPRO. 2006. ‘Assessing Child-Friendly Schools: A Guide for Programme Managers in East Asia and the Pacific’. Bangkok: UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office.

UNICEF EAPRO and UNESCO Bangkok. 2004. ‘Child Friendly Schools in East Asia and the Pacific: “How Friendly Can they Be?” ’. Bangkok: UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific Regional Office and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. www.unicef.org/eapro/CFS_IN_EAP.pdf.

UNICEF ESARO. 2009. ‘Child-Friendly Schools: Emerging Practices in Eastern and Southern Africa; A Human Rights-Based Approach’. Nairobi: UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office. http://www.unicef.org/esaro/CFS_Emerging_Practices_in_ESAR.pdf

UNICEF Haiti. 2009. ‘Annual Report’ [Unpublished internal document]. United Nations Children’s Fund.

UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), ECHO (European Community Humanitarian Office), CECC (Central American Education and Cultural Coordination) and UNICEF. 2008. ‘Safe Schools in Safe Territories: Reflections on the Role of the Educational Community in Risk Management’. United Nations Children’s Fund. www.unisdr.org/files/8962_safeschools.pdf.

Volkmann, C. S. 2013. ‘Resilience in the New Strategic Plan: An Outlook’ [Unpublished PowerPoint presentation]. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund.


1 Funded by the Government of the Netherlands from 2011–2015.

2 The CRC regards every human being under 18 years old as a child (article 1). United Nations organizations commonly define those who are between 15 and 24 years old as youth (Smith and Ellison 2012).

3 See footnote 4 for further discussion of inter-group contact.

4 To reduce inter-group prejudice and hostility, contact between groups is considered to be important in developing positive attitudes and improved understanding towards other groups. This is called the ‘contact hypothesis’ of prejudice reduction as developed by Allport (1954). Some of the examples in this report are underpinned by such an assumption. However, some critiques of this theory are concerned with whether contact has sustained impacts and caution against over-optimism with regard to interpersonal and inter-group contact unless deeper issues of identity and historical and structural inequalities are addressed (UNICEF 2011b). On the other hand, focusing contact and collaborative dynamics around some issue or project not linked to the sources of the conflict itself is held to be very productive: “Simply bringing groups together for activities and for ‘learning about each other’ is less effective than if they are mutually engaged in some effort to create change which is nothing to do with their identity” (Davies 2009a, 5).

5 Whether language policies and issues play a divisive or inclusive role in maintaining and building peaceful relationships between different groups seems to be highly contextual (Sigsgaard 2012). Imposing the language of one ethnic/linguistic group has been shown to be a source of grievance among minority ethnic/language groups in some contexts, for example, Kosovo. In other contexts, a single-language policy has been shown to be a factor promoting peaceful relations between different language groups. In Senegal, where there are more than 15 linguistic groups, the country deliberately chose French as an official language after independence, rather than imposing the dominant language of Wolof on the other language groups. This was done to prevent conflict over different ethnic languages (Bush and Saltarelli 2000). Use of mother-tongue instruction can offer protection against conflict arising from exclusion of ethnic/linguistic minority groups from education. Mother-tongue for early grades, can provide a bridge to learning national, official and international languages. The use of the first language in school can also help develop an inclusive school ethos (Bush and Saltarelli 2000; Sigsgaard 2012; Smith 2010). There are, however, examples where mother-tongue policies have exacerbated inter-group tensions by allowing particular groups to achieve greater sway and influence (UNICEF 2011b).

6 For further information on this topic, see Education Portal, ‘Bronfenbrenner’s Exosystem: Definition, examples & quiz’, http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/bronfenbrenners-exosystem-definition-examples-quiz.html#lesson

7 Key: L = low cost outlay; V = varied cost outlay, dependent on chosen scope of initiative; H = high cost outlay

8 Save the Children Norway, ‘Rewrite the Future Global Evaluation: Nepal country report’, 2010, pp. 1–2; and United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, ‘Peace Dividends and Beyond: Contributions of administrative and social services to peacebuilding’, 2012, p. 74.

9 UNICEF, ‘Education in Conflict and Transition Contexts: Case studies from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nepal and Southern Sudan’, New York, 2010, p. 12.

10 Save the Children, ‘Breaking the Cycle of Crisis: Learning from Save the Children’s delivery of education in conflict-affected fragile states’, London, 2012, ix.

Endnotes


11 Save the Children Norway, ‘Rewrite the Future Global Evaluation’, 2010, pp. 9–10.

12 UNICEF, ‘Education in Conflict and Transition Contexts’, 2010, p. 13.

13 Ibid., p. 12.

14 Save the Children Norway, ‘Rewrite the Future Global Evaluation’, 2010, p. 14.

15 United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, ‘Peace Dividends and Beyond’, 2012, p. 75; and Joshi, Rupa, ‘Countries Learn from Nepal’s “Schools as Zones of Peace” Programme’, UNICEF, Kathmandu, 16 May 2012, www.unicef.org/infobycountry/nepal_62457.html, accessed 29 March 2014.

16 Ibid., 27.

17 Fambul Tok International, ‘How Fambul Tok Works’, Freetown, 2014, www.fambultok.org/what-is-fambul-tok/our-process#consult, accessed 29 March 2014.

18 Beyond Intractability, ‘Love and Forgiveness in Governance: Exemplars – Fambul Tok’ (adapted from Libby Hoffman, ‘How It Works: An in-depth look at the Fambul Tok Process), 2013, www.beyondintractability.org/lfg/exemplars/fambultok, accessed 29 March 2014.

19 Samba, Sylvester, ‘Fambul Tok Introduces Educational Guide’, Global Times Online, 2012, http://globaltimes-sl.org/news2621.html, accessed 29 March 2014.

20 Hoffman, Libby,‘Fambul Tok’, Catalyst for Peace, http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Announcing-Fambul-Tok-s-Educational-Release-.html?soid=1102880277996&aid=gQsyaiWOQwo, accessed 29 March 2014.

21 Ewing, Hanna, ‘Fambul Tok Educational Guide’ (Educator/facilitator version), Catalyst for Peace, 2013, p. 6, www.der.org/resources/study-guides/fambul-tok-educational-guide.pdf, accessed 29 March 2014.

22 Fambul Tok International, ‘Fambul Tok in Sierra Leone’, Freetown, 2014, www.fambultok.org/what-is-fambul-tok/where-is-fambul-tok/sierraleone, accessed 29 March 2014.

23 Ministry of Education, Kenya, ‘Peace Education Programme: Monitoring report for selected districts in Kenya’, 2011.

24 Ministry of Education, Kenya, ‘Peace Education Programme’, 2011; and UNICEF Intranet, ‘In Practice: Bringing peace education into Kenya’s primary curriculum – Seizing opportunities’, 2008.

25 Ministry of Education, Kenya, ‘Peace Education Programme’, 2011.

26 Fundación Escuela Nueva, ‘About Us’, www.escuelanueva.org/portal/en/about-us.html, accessed 31 March 2014; and Leadbeater, Charles, ‘Innovation in Education: Lessons from pioneers around the world’, Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Publishing, Doha, 2012.

27 Fundación Escuela Nueva, op.cit..

28 Rüst, Matthias, ‘Redefining the Educational Form: Peace education through Escuela Nueva’, Global Campaign for Peace Education, Newsletter, no. 96, July 2012, www.peace-ed-campaign.org/newsletter/archives/96.html, accessed 31 March 2104; and UNESCO, ‘Interview with Vicky Colbert, founder and director of Fundación Escuela Nueva’ 19 November 2012, www.unesco.org/new/en/education/resources/online-materials/single-view/news/interview_with_vicky_colbert_founder_and_director_of_fundacion_escuela_nueva-1/#.Uno329yk7IU, accessed 31 March 2014.

29 Rüst, ‘Redefining the Educational Form’, 2012.

30 UNESCO, ‘Interview with Vicky Colbert’, 2012.

31 Fundación Escuela Nueva, ‘Colombia: Peace & community building through the Escuela Nueva pedagogy’, Global, 3 July 2012, http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/756, accessed 31 March 2014.

32 Changemakers.net, ‘Learning Circles: Education for displaced children in Colombia’, Arlington, Va., November 2006, http://proxied.changemakers.net/journal/peace/displaypeace.cfm-ID=220, accessed 31 March 2014.


33 Ibid.

34 Forero-Pineda, Clemente, Danial Escobar-Rodrīguez and Danielken Molina, ‘Escuela Nueva’s Impact on the Peaceful Social Interaction of Children in Colombia’, in Education for All and Multigrade Teaching: Challenges and opportunities, edited by Angela W. Little, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2006, pp. 265–300.

35 Fundación Escuela Nueva, ‘Colombia’, 3 July 2012.

36 Changemakers.net, ‘Learning Circles’, November 2006.

37 Dupuy, Kendra, ‘Education for Peace: Building peace and transforming armed conflict through education systems’ Report no. ISBN 82-7481-165-8, Save the Children Norway, Oslo, 2008, pp. 14–15, http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/INEEcms/uploads/1050/Education_for_Peace_Building_Peace.pdf, accessed 31 March 2014.

38 Vonhm Benda, E. M., ‘Activity Report: Peace education in Liberia.’, Journal of Peace Education, vol. 7, no. 2, 2010, pp. 221–222.

39 Ibid., 222.

40 FrontPage Africa, ‘Vonhm-Benda Peace Education Transforming Lives in Post-Conflict Nations’, 25 September 2011, www.frontpageafricaonline.com/old/lifestyle/people-a-innovation/1379-sowing-peace-three-year-tale-of-how-vonhm-benda-peace-education-transforming-lives-in-post-conflict-nation.html, accessed 31 March 2014.

41 Center for Peace Education, ‘Educators’, Washington, D.C., 2013, www.peaceedu.org/who-we-are/educators, accessed 31 March 2014.

42 Vonhm Benda, ‘Activity Report’, 2010, p. 222.

43 FrontPage Africa, ‘Vonhm-Benda Peace Education’, 2011.

44 Talking Peace, ‘Teaching One’s Self’, http://talkingpeace.weebly.com/teaching-ones-self.html, accessed 31 March 2014.

45 UN News Centre, ‘Learning from Rwandan Genocide Only Way to Shape a Better Future – Ban’, United Nations, 11 April 2012, www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp/html/story.asp?NewsID=41750&Crrwanda&Cr1=#.UoEjhSgx_Hg, accessed 31 March 2014.

46 Kigali Memorial Centre, www.kigaligenocidememorial.org/old/index.html, accessed 1 April 2014.

47 Mistiaen, Veronique. ‘Peace-Building Courses in Rwanda Help Next Generation Learn from Past’, The Guardian, 20 March 2013, www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/mar/20/peace-building-rwanda-next-generation-learn, accessed 1 April 2014.

48 Ibid.

49 Kigali Memorial Centre

50 Mistiaen, ‘Peace-Building Courses in Rwanda’, 2013.

51 Ibid.

52 Sadeed, S., ‘Peace Education Can Make a Difference in Afghanistan’, in Education for Global Citizenship, Education Above All, Doha, 2012, p. 144.

53 Ibid., pp. 144–145.

54 Ibid., p. 146.

55 Ibid.

56 Help the Afghan Children, ‘Annual Report’, 2012, p. 15.


57 Sadeed, S.‘Peace Education Can Make a Difference in Afghanistan’, in Education for Global Citizenship, Education Above All, Doha, 2012, p. 147.

58 Ibid., p. 148.

59 Help the Afghan Children, ‘Annual Report’, 2012.

60 Erjavec, Karmen, and Zala Volcic, ‘Ten Years of Media Education Course in Slovenia’, Uber den tellerand schauen… (Looking beyond the edge), vol. 61, September 2007, p. 14, www2.mediamanual.at/themen/kompetenz/61Erjavec-Volcic-Ten-years-of-Media-Education-in-Slovenia.pdf.

61 Ibid., pp. 15–16.

62 Ibid., p. 16.

63 Erjavec and Volcic, ‘Ten Years of Media Education’, 2007, p. 17; and Erjavec, Karmen, and Zala Volcic, ‘Becoming Media Literate?’, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, vol. 61, no. 3, 2006, pp. 284–296.

64 Erjavec and Volcic, ‘Ten Years of Media Education’, 2007, p. 15.

65 Simona and Tim (Youth in Action), ‘Media Education in Slovenia’, Presentation prepared in the MediaED Lab training course, 7–16 May 2012, www.slideshare.net/Room-of-Fulfilled-Dreams/media-education-in-slovenia-simona-and-tim.

66 Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB), ‘Country Profile: Slovenia v4.0’, Study on the Current Trends and Approaches to Media Literacy in Europe, n.d., p. 10, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/media-content/media-literacy/studies/slovenia.pdf.

67 Nieto, Ana, and Gabriela Luna, ‘Combining a National Competencies Framework and Civil Society Support in Colombia’, Chapter 8 in Education for Global Citizenship, Education Above All, Doha, July 2012, p. 116.

68 Ibid., pp. 121–122.

69 Canadian International Development Agency, ‘Lessons Learned from Children and Youth Participation in Development: Appendices’, Government of Canada, 20 August 2012, www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/NIC-626132351-NEG, accessed 2 April 2014.

70 Ibid.

71 Stewart, Trae, ‘Community-Based Service-Learning for Youth Empowerment in Palestine’, The Educational Forum, vol. 76, no. 1, January 2012, p. 26.

72 Ibid., pp. 28–29.

73 Stewart, op.cit., 2012, p. 29; and Hyatt, Susan, and Sarah Auten,, ‘Evaluation of the Palestinian Youth Empowerment Program (Ruwwad)’, USAID, May 2011, pp. 9–10.

74 Stewart, op.cit., 2012, p. 30.

75 Ibid., p. 33.

76 UNICEF Intranet, ‘In Practice: Mainstreaming gender in child protection in emergencies – The cases of child-friendly spaces’, 2008.

77 Ikoli, Natacha, ‘UNICEF Helps Young People Address and Prevent Sexual Violence in DR Congo’,United Nations Children’s Fund, 4 January 2012, http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/drcongo_61228.html, accessed 3 April 2014.

78 UNICEF Intranet, ‘In Practice’, 2008; and Ikoli, ‘UNICEF Helps Young People’, 2012.

79 Ibid.

80 Generations for Peace, ‘Generations for Peach Marks Sixth Anniversary’, GFP, Amman, 16 April 2013, http://assets.sportanddev.org/downloads/press_release___generations_for_peace_marks_sixth_anniversary.pdf.


81 Generations for Peace, ‘Brochure’, Amman, March 2013, https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/%5B13052013%5D%20Brochure-1.pdf.

82 Generations for Peace, ‘Pioneer Certification Programme’, 2014, www.generationsforpeace.org/UserPages/MenuDetails.aspx?MenuID=110, accessed 3 April 2014.

83 UNESCO, ‘Generations for Peace’, www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SHS/pdf/56775_onlineform.pdf.

84 Generations for Peace, ‘Latest News: Generations For Peace helps displaced children and feuding youth in Aden’, 14 May 2013, www.generationsforpeace.org/UserPages/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=230, accessed 3 April 2014.

85 Generations for Peace, ‘From Our Pioneers with …’, Amman, March 2013, https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/%5B15052013%5D%20GFP%20Pioneering%20Journeys-1.pdf.

86 Sodipo, Michael Olufemi, ‘Mitigating Radicalism in Northern Nigeria’, Africa Security Brief, no. 26, Africa Center for Strategic Studies, Washington, D.C., August 2013, p. 1.

87 Peace Initiative Network, ‘Peace Club’, Kano, Nigeria, http://peaceinitiativenetwork.org/Peace%20Club.html, accessed 3 April 2014.

88 Sodipo, ‘Mitigating Radicalism’, 2013, p. 4.

89 Peace Initiative Network, ‘Peace Club’.

90 Sodipo, ‘Mitigating Radicalism’, 2013, p. 5.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid., p. 7.

93 UNICEF ‘School Without Violence Programme: Towards a safe and enabling environment for children’, UNICEF Intranet, 2010; and Strategic Marketing Research, ‘Evaluation of Program: “School Without Violence,” ’ UNICEF, August 2009 (no page numbers); available at www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_67890.html, accessed 2 April 2014.

94 UNICEF, ‘School Without Violence Programme: Towards a safe and enabling environment for children’, UNICEF Intranet, 2010.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid.

99 Strategic Marketing Research, ‘Evaluation of Program: “School Without Violence,” ’ UNICEF, August 2009 (no page numbers); available at www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_67890.html, accessed 2 April 2014.

100 UNICEF Intranet, ‘School Without Violence Programme: Towards a safe and enabling environment for children’, 2010.

101 GIZ, ‘Education for Social Cohesion’,www.giz.de/en/worldwide/18393.html, accessed 3 April 2014.

102 Davies, Lynn, ‘Sri Lanka’s National Policy on Education for Social Cohesion and Peace’, in Education for Global Citizenship, Education Above All, Doha, July 2012, pp. 256–259.

103 GIZ, ‘Education for Social Cohesion’.

104 Davies, ‘Sri Lanka’s National Policy’, 2012, pp. 258–260.

105 GIZ, ‘Education for Social Cohesion’


106 Davies, ‘Sri Lanka’s National Policy’, 2012, pp. 257, 261–262.

107 BBC News, ‘Uganda Conflict “Worse than Iraq” ’, 10 November 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3256929.stm, accessed 3 April 2014.

108 BBC News Africa, ‘Uganda Profile’, 25 November 2013, www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14107906, accessed 4 April 2014.

109 Save the Children, ‘Summary Report: Thematic evaluation of children’s participation in armed conflict, post-conflict and peace-building–A memorandum of children’s participating in peace building, Uganda’, Save the Children Norway, December 2008, http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/te_cr_summary_report_uganda_3_0.pdf.

110 A ‘peace album’ example, in PDF format, can be downloaded by accessing the following URL: http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/thematic_evaluation_peace_album_global_evaluation_0.pdf.

111 Save the Children, ‘Summary Report’, 2008, pp. 17–19.

112 Ibid., p. 25.


Synoptic Case Study 1 RWANDA: TUSEME CLUBS

‘Tuseme’ means “Let’s speak out” in Swahili. Under the United Nations Girls’ Education Initiative (UNGEI), UNICEF works in partnership with the Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE) to support Tuseme clubs in 54 child-friendly schools across post-conflict Rwanda. The clubs bring together boys and girls from all grades to encourage and support each other to learn, participate, develop and speak out about issues that concern them. The club specifically targets gender bias and inequality.

Tuseme is a process developed by FAWE. The organization trains teachers in facilitating the process. Tuseme teaches children how to investigate and analyse real-life problems, how to express them to the community through theatre performance, song and dance, and how to figure out solutions. Tuseme club members choose a topic to address and, with support from teachers, develop a storyline around the issue. Performances are interactive, inviting audience members to comment on the play, act out scenarios and voice their opinions on the issues presented.

Tuseme clubs across Rwanda have enabled boys and girls to work together, to build friendship and levels of cooperation and to understand and respect each other. Tuseme clubs have dramatically boosted girls’ confidence to speak out against issues such as child abuse and sexual violence. In the words of a girl, ‘Thanks to Tuseme, we have become fearless. Before Tuseme came [to our school] we couldn’t talk about problems like rape. Now when there’s a rape, the Tuseme Club investigates and reports it to our teachers who follow it up.’

Source: Taken from UNGEI, ‘Annual Report 2012’; UNICEF, ‘Girls and Boys Speaking Out Together’, UNICEF Internal Commu-nication Network, News & Noteworthy, 2012; and UNICEF Rwanda, ‘Transforming Tomorrow: “Child-friendly” schools’, undated, pp. 7, 8, 16.

Synoptic case studies

Appendix 1


Synoptic Case Study 2 UNRWA: HUMAN RIGHTS, CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND

TOLERANCE PROGRAMME

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is the main provider of free basic education to nearly half a million Palestinian refugee children. The agency has more than a decade of experience in teaching human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance at its schools in its five fields of operation: the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Starting as a pilot project in 1999 in Gaza and the West Bank, the Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and Tolerance (HRCRT) programme has expanded to all UNRWA schools in all five fields. The programme’s aims are summarized as follows: “promotion of awareness and knowledge of fundamental human rights of persons and children; facilitation of student participation in decision-making in schools and the promotion of leadership skills among students; creation of violence-free school environments that facilitate teaching and learning.”

UNRWA adapted a Human Rights, Conflict Resolution and Tolerance Policy in 2012, in order to strengthen and harmonize its decade-long experience, by analysing its experiences and consulting with stakeholders including students, teachers, head teachers and parents. The policy is in line with the UNRWA Education Reform Strategy (2011–2015). The policy is predicated on a common set of human rights principles particularly identified as relevant to Palestinian refugees: human dignity, universality, equality and non-discrimination, participation and inclusion, and tolerance. The policy has three main sections:

➢Teaching and learning: Fully developing student human rights competencies in terms of knowledge and understanding, attitudes and values and skills (a list of exemplar human rights competencies being included); employing teaching practices reflecting on human rights principles (e.g., respecting student dignity; providing equal opportunities; using learner-centred methods; encouraging cooperative learning; and developing a sense of solidarity, creativity, pride and self-esteem).

➢Teacher preparation and professional development: Providing teacher training and professional development opportunities so that teachers can integrate and model human rights effectively.

➢Learning environment: Creating safe, rights-based and motivating school environments that are hazard-free, violence-free, healthy and accessible to all; human rights being practised and lived as a whole-school community all the time; human rights principles being reflected in all school management processes; and enabling students to express their views freely and participate in school life and in wider community life.

In line with the HRCRT policy, a ‘Teacher Toolkit’ was launched in 2013 after field pilot tests. The toolkit addresses themes identified by UNRWA students, teachers, head teachers and other staff during the HRCRT policy development consultation – including general human rights, participation, diversity, equality and non-discrimination, respect, conflict resolution and community links. It is designed to be user-friendly, guiding all UNRWA teachers from all grades in their teaching and conduct of human rights in the classroom.

Source: UNRWA, ‘Policy on Human Rights, Conflict Resolution, and Tolerance Education’, Amman, 2012, and ‘Human Rights, Conflict Resolution, and Tolerance Education: Teacher Toolkit’, Amman, 2013.


Synoptic Case Study 4NEPAL: PEACE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIC EDUCATION

When Nepal began the process of transition to a republic after the formal ending of Maoist-Royalist conflict in 2006 (see case study 1), there was an acknowledged need to provide education for peace, democracy and human rights. In 2007, a memorandum of understanding was agreed between the Ministry of Education, UNICEF, UNESCO and Save the Children to collaborate on integrating peace, human rights and civic education into the formal curriculum.

One of the noteworthy features of the Nepal curriculum reform process was the establishment of a multi-stakeholder consultative group including diverse marginalized groups in the country: Dalits, indigenous women, Madeshi, human rights and child rights advocates from ethnic minorities. Their roles were, first, to participate in ongoing workshops to provide stories, case studies and cultural, ethnic and linguistic perspectives for integration into revised teaching materials and textbooks, and, second, to review materials written by the curriculum working group to ensure they accurately reflected the diverse perspectives and experiences of their respective communities.

Source: Adapted from Smith, M., ‘Peace, Human Rights and Civic Education in Nepal: Multi-stakeholder collaboration in post-conflict curriculum reform’, in Education for Global Citizenship Education, Education Above All, Doha, 2012, pp. 101–112; and UNICEF, ‘In Practice: Peace, human rights and civic education in primary and secondary school’, UNICEF Intranet, 2007.

Synoptic Case Study 3 KYRGYZSTAN: POST-CONFLICT CIVIC EDUCATION COURSE

In January 2012, following inter-ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz Ministry of Education and Science integrated a post-conflict civic education course into its Grade 9 curriculum. The course covers sources of conflict as well as peaceful and constructive conflict resolution methods such as dialogue, mediation and democratic engagement. The course was developed by the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative in conjunction with nine local, non-governmental law centres. It has been ‘pilot taught’ in pairs by 80 Kyrgyz and Uzbek university students to 1,200 ninth graders at 44 secondary schools throughout the country. The students received training in facilitating the pilot course’s interactive learning techniques and in youth psychology.

Source: American Bar Association, ‘Post-Conflict Civic Education Course Incorporated into Kyrgyzstan’s Secondary-School Curriculum’, February 2012, www.americanbar.org/advocacy/rule_of_law/where_we_work/europe_eurasia/kyrgyzstan/news/news_kyrgyzstan_civic_education_course_incorporated_into_school_curriculum_0212.html, accessed 27 March 2014.


Synoptic Case Study 5COLOMBIA: RETURN TO HAPPINESS

UNICEF started its Return to Happiness programme in Colombia in 1996. Designed to provide urgent psychosocial support to children affected by civil war, the crucial component comprised enabling families and communities to take part in the recovery process. Adolescent volunteers from the community became ‘agents’ of psychosocial recovery. They were trained in play therapy and were taught how to nurture trust and hope among younger children through games, art, puppetry, song and storytelling. Alternative and safe spaces were created in churches, parks and under trees for play therapy sessions. Community members provided youth volunteers with a ‘knapsack of dreams’ containing handmade materials such as rag dolls, puppets, wooden toys and books to support the programme. Adolescent volunteers proved to be ideal role models for younger children. Helping younger children, in turn, contributed to developing their own self-esteem and overcoming their own distress. Parents, teachers and community members supported adolescent volunteers by forming self-help groups.

Source: Taken from UNICEF, ‘Child Friendly Spaces/Environments (CFS/E): An integrated service strategy for emergencies and their aftermath’, 2004.

Synoptic Case Study 6STATE OF PALESTINE: THE ‘WE CARE’ PROGRAMME

In the conflict-affected context of the 2000-2003 intifada, UNICEF, in conjunction with the Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation, implemented a ‘We Care’ peer-to-peer counselling programme for adolescents. University students interested in psychology and sociology were recruited to offer counselling and support in 58 secondary schools across the State of Palestine. Following an intensive and very emotional eight-day training, they ran psychosocial one-on-one support sessions for adolescents who had been traumatized by the situation in which they were living. After building a relationship of trust, the university students encouraged open discussion of issues that were troubling the school students. Realizing that the need to talk could not be regularly assuaged due to travel restrictions, the volunteer counsellors established a hotline with at least one male and one female volunteer on call at any time.

In the second phase of the project (2002), adolescents seeking psychosocial support were encouraged to become involved in creative expression and community development activities. Their articles, stories and photographs were featured in The Youth Times (circulation 100,000) and participants were also invited to air their views and grievances in a weekly television forum for young people. Groups of 10 adolescents also worked collectively on community improvement and mobilization projects. Within three years, ‘We Care’ evolved from pilot status to a viable programme of adolescent participation in community development. While university volunteers acquired professional skills and practical experience, adolescent students learned about their rights; acquired the confidence, self-esteem and skills to be proactive; and took on a new optimism founded in constructive engagement.

Source: UNICEF, ‘Adolescent Programming Experiences During Conflict and Post-Conflict’, New York, 2004, pp. 47–54.


Synoptic Case Study 7SRI LANKA: THE BUTTERFLY PEACE GARDEN

Located in Sri Lanka’s Eastern Province, the Butterfly Peace Garden offers sanctuary for healing and reconciliation for war affected and otherwise traumatized children. Its regular nine-month program in free play and the arts is for 180 children under 12 from local village schools (50 per cent Tamils; 50 per cent Muslim). In mixed-gender groups of sixty, they attend for three sessions per week. Graduates of the regular program can join the Youth Experimental Program for 13- to 18-year-olds engaging in creative theatre and collaborative community art. There are three sessions per month over 9 months. Again, 50 per cent of places are for allocated to Tamils and 50 per cent to Muslims. The Butterfly Garden also provides short residential courses for children and youth from far-away villages or sends its facilitators to lead a programme of a few days in their home village.

As described at the project’s website: “Within the cocoon of the Butterfly Peace Garden children of war are given the tools of peace as they learn to practice and cultivate the arts together, friend with foe. They are given soul space within which they can orient themselves and a compass to help them get their bearings and map out new realities for the future.” The transformation process works on the integration of the inner and outer world of the individual. Under the heading of ‘Earthwork’, children learn to care for the environment and different life forms while concerning themselves with community relations. For ‘Heartwork’ they concern themselves with their own and others’ spiritual and psychological well-being through contemplation, mindfulness, meditation as well as body/mind practices such as yoga and qigong. One-to-one counselling sessions are offered.

‘Artwork’ bridges the physical and metaphysical by drawing meaning out of ‘Garden’ experiences through creative processes. Of central importance are image building and story creation, in which children ‘re-dream’ their lives and futures, what the Garden calls “the healing dreams of war-affected children.” The ‘palette’ of creative activities includes acting, body painting, clay work, doll making, drumming, gardening, graphic art, mask making, poetry writing, photography, song making, story making and telling, and performance arts such as ritual theatre and street theatre.

Source: ‘The Butterfly Peace Garden’, Bratticaloa, Sri Lanka, 2011, http://butterflypeacegarden.org, accessed 3 April 2014.


Synoptic Case Study 8BURUNDI: CHILDREN’S DRAWING AS A CHANNEL FOR ADVOCACY

AND SOCIAL MOBILIZATION

In 2007, in order to scale up child participation in advocacy and social mobilization, UNICEF organized a nationwide drawing competition on the theme ‘Peace in Burundi’. The competition took place during of the African Child. The event was widely advertised on radio, in both French and Kirundi (the national language) to attract the largest possible number of children, both in school and out of school. Many children who entered the competition were from underprivileged backgrounds and had difficulty expressing themselves when writing in Kirundi; the competition was conducted in a context without systematic art education in most schools.

Some 50 children, aged 5–12, participated in the competition in Bujumbura. It was preceded by a sensitization workshop led by professional artists on the theme of peace through stories, songs, dancing, pictures and role playing. Children’s drawing revealed that they were indeed aware of the difficult situation in their country and had dreams of a better country. The best drawings were reproduced to large scale on UNICEF Burundi’s perimeter wall, which became a major attraction known as the ‘UNICEF Wall of Peace’. Thousands of people, including children, stopped by daily to admire and discuss the drawings.

The success of the first competition led to a second one, also in 2007, organized on the theme of ‘Situation of Child Rights and A Burundi Fit for Children’ and involving 833 children. Children first participated in a drawing competition at the provincial level. The three winners in each of the 17 provinces then attended the national competition in Bujumbura, which started with a two-day workshop on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The children also paid an advocacy visit to the President of the Senate for a discussion on the implementation of the CRC in Burundi.

Source: Taken from UNICEF Burundi Office, ‘Annual Report’ (UNICEF internal document), 2007.


Synoptic Case Study 9 SENEGAL: PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH ON VIOLENCE

IN SCHOOLS

In 2008/9, students at the J. F. Kennedy Girls Secondary School in Dakar conducted participatory action research on violence at school. The research programme aimed to equip girl students against verbal, physical, sexual and psychological violence; raise teachers’ awareness of violence-related issues; and identify key activities to be implemented in the school to address violence. The research had three components: education aimed at developing active participative capacity among students; research aimed at identifying the root causes and manifestations of violence in their own environment; and action aimed at developing action plans and setting in motion activities to address the problems identified through the research.

An action research group, comprising 20 girl students, 11 teachers and five administrative staff, was formed. The group was trained in research methodology and data collection. Students, teachers and administrative staff administered surveys and led focus groups. Data were processed and analysed, and results were disseminated by students to the whole school. Action plans on the drawing board following the research included: raising awareness by means of a school newspaper and blog; training and workshops for teachers and staff; and establishing an information unit to provide documentation and advice on school-based violence.

Through the research activities the topic of violence was discussed widely at school and, to some extent, at home. The research encountered feelings of being threatened on the part of male teachers and some resistance from other school staff, but open and effective communication overcame these issues. Positive impacts on students involved improvements in communication and presentation skills. The self-esteem of the girls in the action research group increased as peers and teachers acknowledged their authority and expertise on violence issues.

Action plans were scheduled for implementation in September 2010, but they were still pending as of October 2010 due to a change in school leadership and lack of funding. The current situation is unknown.

Source: Save the Children, et al., ‘Too Often in Silence: Addressing violence in schools – Selected interventions from West and Central Africa’, 2010, pp. 32–33, www.unicef.org/wcaro/Too_often_in_silence_Initiatives.pdf, accessed 27 March 2014.


Synoptic Case Study 10INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE’S HEALING CLASSROOMS

INITIATIVE

In 2004, the Healing Classrooms Initiative was developed based on the educational work of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) in conflict- and crisis-affected countries for more than 30 years. The initiative focuses on teachers’ critical role in creating supportive and healing learning environments and in promoting the psychosocial recovery, well-being, and social and emotional learning of crisis-affected children and youth.

IRC offers training and coaching for teachers recognizing the importance of their experience, motivation and well-being. It has created toolkits for Healing Classrooms, including an ‘E-Learning’ distance education course to train field staff, along with government and other local partners, on the core concepts; the ‘Guide for Teachers and Teacher Educators’, aimed at helping teachers and teacher educators create healing classrooms and support student well-being; and ‘Multi-media Teacher Training Resource’, a print and DVD package for a six-day teacher training course. Since 2004, IRC has worked with more than 5,000 teachers and 400,000 students each year in a number of conflict-affected countries around the world.

Source: Adapted from International Rescue Committee, ‘Overview: The Healing Classrooms approach to education’ (content changed since original access date), October 2013, www.rescue.org/blog/healing-classrooms-helping-kids-cope-after-crisis.

Resources available online: Healing Classrooms ‘eLearning Program’, www.healingclassrooms.org, and IRC, ‘Creating Heal-ing Classrooms: Guide for teachers and teacher educators – For field testing’, June 2006sites/default/files/migrated/resources/hci-teachers-guide.pdf, accessed 27 March 2014.


Synoptic Case Study 11SIERRA LEONE: ‘EMERGING ISSUES’ TEACHER TRAINING

PROGRAMME

In 2008, UNICEF developed the “Emerging Issues” Teacher Training Programme, working together with the Sierra Leonean Ministry of Education and national Teacher Training Institutions. A working group with a wide range of stakeholders (including the Ministry, non-governmental organizations and heads of three teacher education colleges) identified the most urgent or ‘emergent’ issues needing to be addressed in the core teacher-training curriculum given the post-conflict situation of the country. The group decided on the following: human rights, citizenship, peace, environment, reproductive health, drug abuse, gender equity and disaster management. The programme also focused on the use of more interactive pedagogies. Topics such as educational theory, classroom management and teachers as agents of change were also included. The materials developed are a course unit for each year of the three-year, full-time pre-service teacher training course; a three-year distance education course for in-service teachers; and a three-week intensive in-service training course. The INEE Peace Education Programme formed the basis of the “Emerging Issues” programme.

Source: Adapted from Learning for Peace, ‘Sierra Leone “Emerging Issues” Teacher Training Programme’, UNICEF, 28 July 2011, www.educationandtransition.org/resources/sierra-leone-emerging-issues-teacher-training-programme (resources mentioned are available on this website link); and INEE, ‘Peace Education’ (Developed and endorsed by UNESCO, UNHCR, UNICEF and INEE), www.ineesite.org/en/peace-education, accessed 27 March 2014.


Synoptic Case Study 12WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES: ADVOCACY EFFORTS OF CHILDREN

AND YOUTH AGAINST VIOLENCE

Violence Against Children (VAC), a 2008–2011 project developed by Save the Children and Plan International, was aimed at widespread dissemination of the content and follow-up mechanisms of the Unite Nations VAC study among young people, caregivers and policymakers in West Africa. It also aimed to promote child and youth participation in regional and national advocacy efforts to address violence against children. Members chosen from existing youth and children’s groups received advocacy training and developed advocacy plans. Comic books on VAC developed by children were distributed through the project to young people and adults in the West African region.

Young people engaged in sensitization activities and exchanged experiences through radio, the VAC website, meetings, art and social mobilization events. Some youth group members participated in international conferences and interacted with international leaders and policymakers. Positive results were reported in the daily lives of participating youth and children, who gained skills to break the cycle of violence and modelled positive behaviours for peers.

Source: Adapted from Save the Children, et al., ‘Too Often in Silence: Addressing violence in schools – Selected interventions from West and Central Africa’, 2010, www.unicef.org/wcaro/Too_often_in_silence_Initiatives.pdf; and Plan, ‘Violence against Children’, www.plan-childrenmedia.org/spip.php?rubrique77&vac=1&lang=en, accessed 27 March 2014.


Appendix 2

Standards and indicators for child-friendly schools for peacebuilding in post-conflict contexts

Rigorous evidence-based understanding of relationships between education, conflict and peacebuilding is generally limited (Salm and Schubert 2012; UNICEF 2011d, 2012c, 2013a). There are a number of reasons, including the following:

• There are multiple and competing interpretations and also ambiguities regarding peacebuilding-related terminology and concepts (UNICEF 2011d, 2013b).

• It is difficult to systematically collect data in volatile conflict-affected contexts – as well as when programme cycles are short, staff turnover frequent and institutional memories are poor (UNICEF 2011d).

• Commonly used indicators are focused on programme activities/outputs rather than peacebuilding impacts (UNICEF 2011d, 2013b).

• The less tangible and qualitative nature of peacebuilding outcomes – e.g., social transformation, social cohesion, reconciliation and building relationships – are difficult to measure objectively and to quantify (Search for Common Ground, undated; Lederach, Neufeldt and Culbertson 2007; UNICEF 2012c).

• Monitoring and evaluating long-term and complex peacebuilding impacts is resource-intensive and costly (UNICEF 2012c).

• The full impacts of peacebuilding education are unlikely to be achieved within a short programme time period (Salm and Schubert 2012; UNICEF 2013b).

• It is difficult to isolate the impact of a specific programme in a complex post-conflict context from political, economic and social aspects (UNICEF 2012c).

The ‘Evaluability Assessment’ of the PBEA programme (UNICEF 2013b, 14) calls for inclusion of more progress towards indicators. While highlighting the need for indicators that reflect key peacebuilding dimensions and concepts, i.e., social cohesion, resilience and human security, the assessment also recommends the development of achievable intermediate indicators. The UNICEF CFS manual (2009a) commends ‘process evaluation’ that, among other things, measures how well interventions have been implemented by schools. Focusing on progress is in line with the process-oriented ethos of both the CFS initiative and peacebuilding education.


CFS standards and graduated progress indicators for peacebuilding

Among a number of diverse examples of UNICEF CFS indicators reviewed for this study, C standards and indicators developed in the Maldives by the Ministry of Education with UNICEF support (UNICEF Maldives 2010) have informed the style of the standards and indicators presented here. The Maldives has developed 32 ‘standards of quality’ for its five CFS dimensions, and each quality standard has indicators that “serve as criteria for a certain level of rating for that standard.” Four levels of rating are used: emerging, progressing, achieving and achieved.

Adapting the Maldives model, this section presents C standards for peacebuilding followed by graduated progress indicators that cover different features of CFS by applying the same peacebuilding spectrum used throughout this report, i.e. a continuum that identifies peacebuilding gaps in child-friendly school provision as well as elements of child-friendly schooling that are peacebuilding latent and peacebuilding resonant (see 1.2). They are organized according to the following levels: classroom, schools as community, school in community, national and sub-national governance. For each level, a set of data sources for evidence and verification is also suggested.

It is anticipated that the suggested standards and progress indicators can serve multiple purposes, for instance, as:

1. A heuristic for school-based stakeholders to reflect on the quality and level of their current practice and to plan for continuous improvement.

2. A monitoring and evaluation tool at national and sub-national levels used periodically to assess if child-friendly schools are moving in the direction of increased peacebuilding relevance and, hence, making a progressively more robust contributions to peacebuilding goals and outcomes.

3. A discussion tool in teacher, principal and education officer training contexts.

4. A programme audit/internal review tool for UNICEF country offices to strategize a CFS programme for peacebuilding.

The standards (first column) and indicators can be used as a checklist. Alternatively, a scale (for example, a Likert-type scale such as ‘4’ fully realized; ‘3’ realized to a considerable extent, ‘2’ partially realized, ‘1’ minimally realized, ‘0’ not at all realized) can be applied to the standards and to the ‘peacebuilding latent’ and ‘peacebuilding resonant columns’. Both uses enable the extent to which child-friendly schooling is incorporating as a peacebuilding dimension to be evaluated, the former more bluntly, the latter in a more nuanced manner with more sensitive calibration. The UNICEF CFS manual (2009a) recommends the use of a Likert-type scale for measurement of progress over time.


Standards Peacebuilding gap Peacebuilding latent Peacebuilding resonant

A1. Curriculum content

Child-friendly concepts are systematically integrated into curriculum with clear peacebuilding purpose

□ Curriculum aspects explicit and implicit in child-friendly concept (human rights, child rights, democracy, diversity, inclusiveness, peace and social justice, security) but are undeveloped or tokenistic

□ Curriculum aspects of child-friendly concept treated in some subjects but lacking in systematic cross-curricular and through-the-grades interlinking and reinforcement

□ Life skills development addressed within the curriculum but with no clear and intentional peacebuilding orientation

□ Curriculum aspects of child-friendly concept systematically infused as themes and topics across the curriculum at each grade level and vertically through the grades to clear peacebuilding purpose

□ Systematic and progressive articulation/addressing/realization of child-friendly knowledge, life skills and attitudinal/dispositional learning outcomes with clear peacebuilding intent

A2. Concept of citizenship and nature of citizenship education

Child-friendly curriculum promotes plural and parallel citizenship competencies among students

□ Notion of citizenship not addressed or taken for granted or not ‘problematized’

□ No conception of active citizenship building

□ Curriculum looks at and celebrates diversity, difference, inclusivity and social cohesion as part of nation building/healing

□ Curriculum fosters democratic dispositions but offers limited, largely status quo non-critical, opportunities for practising active citizenship

□ Curriculum challenges students to critically engage with the notion of plural and parallel citizenship in which, alongside the nation state, the individual has multiple other sources of identity and loyalty, local through global

□ Curriculum, teaching and learning challenge students to critically engage with the dilemmas of plural and parallel citizenship, for instance, standing out against prevailing hegemonic or oppressive group thinking and attitudes (i.e., constructive patriotism)

□ Curriculum promotes ethic of participatory democracy and opens up a varied range of spaces for practising and exercising active, concerned and critical citizenship

A3. Determination of curriculum

Learners and other local stakeholders contribute to child-friendly curriculum content development

□ Curriculum is laid down in detail with no latitude for on-the-ground and contextually responsive adaptation

□ Curriculum offers a framework giving teachers the opportunity to engage students in determining curriculum detail, associated learning media and activities

□ Sections of the curriculum are left open for students, along with other local stakeholders, to contribute to determining how the spaces are filled according to perceived needs and priorities

□ Curriculum forum representing students and community stakeholders monitors/proposes curriculum content

A4. Pedagogical approach Various types of child-centred and active pedagogies are experienced by learners to help them develop peacebuilding ethics, attitudes and behaviours

□ Teaching largely a matter of knowledge transmission from the teacher; learning is textbook driven and individualistic

Learning is active and child-centred, marked by interactive group and whole-class learning with a reduced role for the textbook with students often undertaking project work

□ Learning and presentation of learning happens through a range of media of choice

□ Learning remains child-centred but with a shift from the transactional to the transformational in which the ‘active’ in learning becomes action learning, often involving field experience, enquiry and engagement in school and community change

□ Emphasis on the use of the imagination to envision and ‘feel inside’ alternate states, ways of seeing the world, ways of doing things, ways of relating

A. Classroom level

uu


□ While of core significance to the ethos of the child-friendly school, concern for the psychosocial well-being of the child is not systematically built into learning programmes and learning facilitation

□ Cooperative learning – involving positive, mutually reliant interdependence of learners in their pursuit and processing of learning – is a regular feature in fostering an ethic of peace

□ Structured reconciliation and trust-building opportunities are afforded for sharing hopes, fears, bad memories and other emotions and for processing emotional responses to learning stimuli

□ Techniques and activities for bolstering self-esteem are consciously and systematically programmed into the learning process

A5. Engagement with teaching and learning materials and the media

Teaching and learning materials are free from negative stereotypes, and learners develop critical media literacy competency as well as competency in using media for peacebuilding purposes

□ Teaching and learning materials – primarily unreformed textbooks – present negative depictions, ‘enemy’ and stereotypical images of other groups that remain unchallenged and offer slanted historical narratives written from the perspective of dominant groups

□ The distortions in unreformed teaching and learning materials are compensated for through the provision of varied, supplementary materials, thus opening the door for students to compare and contrast texts

□ Processes of textbook and learning material revision are set in train involving subject experts and adults belonging to the various groups engaged in conflict

□ Critical media literacy a key element in learning programmes aimed at enhancing learners’ skills to decode and deconstruct media, to detect self-interested power plays and see through manipulative devices

□ Students are involved in the process of revising textbooks and learning materials

□ Learning materials, often locally generated, include minority case studies and give voice to minority perspectives

□ Students learn how to employ media for purposes of school and community peacebuilding advocacy

A6. Temporal orientation of curriculum, teaching and learning

Child-friendly curriculum, teaching and learning include a future-orientation to facilitate students envisioning change and building ‘change agency’ capacities

□ Teaching and learning more or less characterized by a ‘rear view mirror’ focus on assumptions and practices of the past

□ Child-centred learning emphasizes the immediate present and experience of the child but can be constricted by a past-moulded and past-oriented curriculum

□ Curriculum predicated on the co-creating dynamic existing between past, present and future, showing how perceptions of each time zone affect perceptions of the others and allowing for a hitherto missing focus on the future

□ Students consider probable, possible and preferred futures, personal through global, how to pre-empt negative futures while working for alternative positive futures, and how to set about realizing desired futures through effective change agency and advocacy

Examples of data sources for evidence and verification

• Curriculum/syllabus framework

• Textbooks, lesson plans, supplementary teaching and learning materials

• Teacher training programmes and materials; teacher manuals

• Classroom observation

• Teacher self-evaluation; teacher peer observation

• Student peer- and self-assessment

• Interviews, surveys and questionnaires with students, teachers, parents and teacher educators

• Interviews with national and sub-national level MoE personnel responsible for formal curriculum and teacher education

• National policies, guidelines and strategies on school curricula and pedagogy



B1 .Student council

Student council is democratically run by students and addresses school- and community-based injustice and other conflict-related issues

□ No representative student body in the school

□ A token student council exists but lacks a clear democratic mandate, meets irregularly and has no clearly defined function

□ A student council or parliament is in place with elected representatives from each class or grade level

□ The council/parliament meets on a regular basis according to an established meetings calendar

□ Meetings are more or less controlled by teachers but with space for student exchange, proposals and voting

□ The remit of the council is, for the most part, limited to organizing social events and festivities, extra-curricular activities, and tasks students perform around the school

□ Resolutions go to the principal for acceptance or non-acceptance

□ Beyond voting majority of students not democratically active

□ Forms of election are used to achieve representation of different groups caught up in past conflict

□ Equal representation of boys and girls is achieved

□ Meetings are led by the students with teachers, as called upon, in an observational, advisory and support role

□ The agenda is determined by the student representatives based on issues raised and proposals from their peers with no restriction on topic

□ The remit of the council/parliament includes discussing and making proposals about problems, injustices and conflicts existing in the school and wider community including inter-group and staff/student tension and conflict

□ Resolutions from the council are processed – and are seen to be processed – in a serious and respectful way by principal and teachers, resolutions going before other school bodies for consideration

B2. Other student representation

School management mechanisms (e.g., school council, school management committee) ensure meaningful participation by student representatives

□ Students are not represented on other formal school or community bodies

□ Representatives from the student council or parliament sit on the school council or school management committee but with a role more or less restricted to reporting on or arguing for items falling within the student council’s limited remit

□ Representatives of the student council or parliament sit on the school council or school management committee with the remit to raise issues, conflicts and tensions arising out school life, staff relations, the curriculum, the school building and school/community relations, and to put forward proposals

□ Students have a similar presence on the school/community council

□ Ad hoc ‘single issue’ groups of students have the right to make representations before the school council and the school/community council

B. School as community level


B3. Forums and assemblies

Student-led forums and assemblies are in place to address issues most urgent to students

□ No forums exist at class, year group or whole school level where students can meet in informal assembly for the open exchange of issues of concern

□ A limited number of teacher-organized class, year group or whole school forums occur in each school year in which students are invited to air and discuss issues of concern, the forums having no decision-making weight

□ A culture is created in which informal, participative and spontaneous student forums are the norm for defining and diagnosing problems, sharing perspectives and information and articulating priorities and – with teacher and other stakeholder input and support – determining case-related student advocacy and action.

B4. Student action

CFS promotes student-led peacebuilding projects and actions in both school and community

□ Channels are seemingly closed for students to engage in action learning for change agency and advocacy

□ The child right to participate is recognized but in practice is channelled into largely non-contentious and unproblematic areas of school/community life (e.g., menial tasks, social events)

□ The culture of student participation extends to social learning, inter-group relations, conflict management, violence prevention, school/community relations

□ Student-led school and community change projects are encouraged, and constructively/creatively supported

□ Student participation involves links and collaboration with community groups, out-of-school agencies and organizations, local enterprise, local government and networks of schools

B5. School clubs

Students are actively involved in school clubs oriented towards peacebuilding purposes/goals

□ There are no extra-curricular opportunities for students to exercise their right of freedom of assembly and self-expression

□ Students’ participatory rights are realized through extra-curricular school clubs largely instigated by teachers; many focus on recreational and sporting participation

□ A culture is created in which students are encouraged and enabled to form their own clubs

□ Teacher facilitation of clubs is oriented towards a peacebuilding purpose, e.g., using competitive sport flashpoints for conflict mediation, resolution and reconciliation purposes

□ Sports and recreation club activities are consciously promoted as vehicles for mutual understanding and friendship building

B6. School codes of conduct

School codes of conduct with peacebuilding values are developed and implemented involving active student participation

□ A code of conduct (or set of ‘school rules’) developed by adult school stakeholders with no consultation with students

□ A code of conduct for the school community developed and periodically reconsidered in consultation with students, and the code is displayed at the school gate and entrance and in each classroom and regularly cited in assemblies and other gatherings

□ Infractions of the code are generally dealt with by teachers

□ A code of conduct for the school community, with an explicit statement of peacebuilding values, developed in consultation with students and frequently displayed and cited

□ Processes are in place for students to play an active role in the observance, implementation and amendment of the code

□ Peer jury mechanisms are in place for peer-to peer discipline and for peer determination of restitution in cases of harm or offence

u


B7. Handling student conflict

Student peer mediation processes fully function at school and students are empowered to solve interpersonal and inter-group conflicts peacefully in school and community

□ Conflicts among students are dealt with and disciplined exclusively by teachers

□ Student peer mediation groups are in place, but they play an insufficient role given mediation needs; their profile and place in school infrastructure falls short of making them a distinctive feature of school life

□ Student peer mediation processes are fully functioning, organized and highly profiled at the school

□ Student peer mediation group members train other (especially younger) students to become mediators

□ Student peer mediation group members/those who are trained fulfil a mediation role in the community

B8. Physical environment

CFS ensures child and adult stakeholder involvement in decision making concerning creating safe, protective and peace-enhancing school physical environment

□ Development and maintenance of school physical environment does not involve students

□ Adult school/community stakeholders consulted about site location, construction, restoration and refurbishment

□ Student role restricted to simple school maintenance chores assigned by adults

□ Diverse school/community stakeholders (including students) from divided communities share ideas and suggestions with architects, designers, engineers and other relevant professionals on design, development and maintenance of a safe school physical environment

□ Working with community members, students create murals, artwork and artefacts on the theme of peace and/or create and maintain school peace gardens as an arena for reflection, exchange and sharing

□ Classroom seating/furniture arrangements encourage maximum interaction among students, e.g., tables for collaborative group work, carpeted spaces for informal discussion

□ The school has a dedicated physical space for learning for peace, e.g., peace room, peace centre, peace garden

B9. Non-violent school culture and climate

CFS provides fertile platforms and mechanisms to foster non-violent school culture and climate

□ Student concerns regarding violent incidents and security are silenced or go unrecognized

□ Safe platforms, procedures and/or mechanisms are in place for students to report physical and psychological threats, violent incidents and security concerns

□ Students are practiced in using child-to-child peacebuilding modalities such as circle time, peer juries and peer mediation

□ Students play a key advocacy role in campaigning for a non-violent school culture and climate

B10. Inclusive school culture and climate

CFS ensures inclusive school culture and climate through proactive inclusive approaches to diversity

□ The school seeks out and enrols non-attending vulnerable, minority and marginalized children without giving due voice and recognition to their cultural identity in school life and learning

□ The school proactively fosters a sense of belonging among children of different groups by cultural celebration (e.g. stories, artefacts, music, dance)

□ Proactive inclusivity is extended by allotting curriculum and learning space for the non-appropriated voice, narrative and experiences of vulnerable, minority and marginalized groups

□ Tensions, grievances and misunderstandings arising from a sharing of narratives are taken up in conflict resolution and reconciliation processes in which adult members of communities that have experienced conflict participate


B11. School self- assessment and school improvement planning

Conflict risk analysis informs school self-assessment and students play an active role in school self-assessment and school improvement planning

□ School self-assessment and school improvement processes are not in place

□ Student participation in school self-assessment and school improvement planning is consultative only

□ Students play an active role in implementing school self-assessment and developing and implementing school improvement plans

□ Conflict risk analysis is an integral part of school self-assessment tools and frameworks

B12. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

CFS ensures meaningful and active student participation in all stages of monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

□ Student voices are absent in M&E procedures and outcomes

□ Students are consulted in M&E through participation in surveys and interviews orchestrated and conducted by adults

□ Students are given opportunities to contribute to developing M&E tools (including conflict situation analysis elements) and to implementing M&E through, for example, data collection and analysis

□ Students give feedback on M&E findings

□ Based on M&E conflict-related findings, students take action on peacebuilding-related issues and problems


• School mission and vision statement, school policy

• School organizational structure

• School codes of conduct

• School self-assessments, school improvement plans, school action plans

• Written constitution, minutes, notes, proceedings and announcements of student council, school council, other school forums and clubs

• Records of student councils, forum and club activities

• Staff self-evaluation

• Interview and questionnaire surveys of students, teachers, principals and parents



C1. Level and quality of parental and community engagement

CFS promotes active participation by parents and community members from all backgrounds in decision making concerning creating safe, protective and peace-enhancing school and community

□ Formal school, parental and/or community consultative and collaborative mechanisms exist (e.g., PTA, school management committee, school board) but the parental/community contribution largely limited to financial and resource support as requested by the school

□ Formal school, parental and/or community consultative and collaborative mechanisms exist to determine levels and types of parental participation in school

□ Parent representatives are actively involved in school matters, but the majority of groups remain inactive or are under-represented

□ An inclusivity culture is in place with mechanisms to ensure all groups are represented on bodies linking school with community

□ Parents from all backgrounds are involved in school decision-making processes, especially as relating to school safety and peaceful coexistence between groups

□ Parents and other community members from all backgrounds work together with students on action projects aimed at strengthening community bonds and building community resilience

□ The school has mechanisms and channels for bringing parental and community knowledge and experience to bear on student learning

C2. Student participation in community

Students are actively involved in enquiry- and action-based peacebuilding initiatives in the community

□ School fails to open up arenas and channels for student participation in the community

□ School recognizes the importance of student community-based learning and provides necessary support

□ Students participate in community-based initiatives arranged by adults

□ Students self-organize community-based activities particularly focused on engendering inclusivity, social cohesion and community resilience

□ Student peacebuilding action in the community is not extraneous to curriculum but embedded in curriculum

□ Students from diverse backgrounds actively cooperate in community-based enquiry- and action-oriented partnerships as analysers of conflict situations and risks, designers and implementers of peace initiatives, communicators of conflict risks, mobilizersofconflictresilience initiatives and/or constructors of social networks and capital

□ Students promote peace through creative media production and use of social media

C3. Level of school-community integration

CFS serves as the community hub of environmental and community security

□ Mechanisms, channels and arenas for school integration with the community are undeveloped

□ Formal school-community links exist but communication is limited and generally one way (such as requests for community support) and the relationship non-reciprocal

□ School acknowledged as the hub of a community environmental and community security agenda, offering inclusive platforms and arenas for dialogue, reconciliation and collaboration between divided community groups, and orchestrating peace- and resilience-building actions, with students in an ambassadorial and catalytic role

C. School in community level



• Minutes, notes of meetings

• Records and narratives of parental and community participation, including student participation in the community

• Interviews, surveys and questionnaires with students, teachers, principals, parents and community members

• Examples of student-created media/social media

• Written school-community partnership agreements


D1. National policy and framework

National policy and framework for CFS include clear peacebuilding goals

□ Child-friendly schools are unrecognized or not seen as a priority by the national government

□ Nationally defined CFS principles, standards and indicators are integrated into government policy, strategy and guideline documents

□ Nationally defined CFS principles, standards, policies and framework indicators clearly articulate peacebuilding goals such as social cohesion, inclusivity, participatory democracy, resilience building and human security

D2. Situation analysis (SitAn)

SitAn is informed by conflict analysis, and child and adult stakeholders from diverse backgrounds are involved

□ CFS interventions are designed but without an education sector situation and conflict analysis

□ Education sector situation analysis informs CFS framing and programming

□ Conflict analysis components are clearly embedded in national SitAn process and tools

□ SitAn is conducted through engagement with diverse stakeholder groups, including different communities

□ Processes and channels for including student contributions to the national SitAn (including conflict analysis) process exist

D3. Multi-sectorial, multi-level and partnership approaches

Multi-sectorial, multi-level and partnership approaches are used in developing and implementing policy and framework on CFS for peacebuilding

□ Multi-sectorial, multi-level and/or partnership approaches for child-friendly schools are underdeveloped

□ Multi-sectorial, multi-level and/or partnership approaches for developing child-friendly schooling exist, but fall short of articulating peacebuilding goals

□ A national policy framework for CFS for peacebuilding is developed through multi-sectorial consultation as well as consultation with strategic partners

□ Multi-sectorial, multi-level and partnership approaches to developing child-friendly schooling for peacebuilding exist and work effectively

D. National and sub-national governance levels

u


D4. Professional development

Systematic and continuous professional development opportunities for peacebuilding education are available

□ CFS teacher and principal training happen as more or less ‘one-off’ events with no follow-up or reinforcement mechanism in place

□ Teacher training focuses on capacity building for facilitating child-centred education

□ Beyond learning facilitation, training focuses on school self-assessment, school improvement planning and alternative, non-corporal forms of discipline

□ Follow-up reinforcement of teacher and principal training in place

□ Systematic and continuous teacher education (in-service and pre-service) on the following areas:

- human rights, democratic participation, social cohesion, conflict resolution and multiple citizenship identities;

- procedures and methodologies for negotiating curriculum with students;

- facilitation of cooperative learning, socio-emotional learning and future-oriented learning;

- handling biased teaching and learning materials;

- ways of developing students’ critical media and political literacy;

- facilitating school- and community-linked action-oriented learning

D5. National team

National CFS team ensures diverse and inclusive membership

□ No national team to lead the CFS initiative

□ Membership of CFS national team limited to formal government representatives

□ National CFS team is representative of diverse groups within the country, including ethnic groups, men and women, and the younger generation

D6. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

National CFS M&E examines peacebuilding impacts; diverse stakeholders are included in the M&E process

□ Systematic M&E data collection mechanisms, tools and practices are underdeveloped

□ Systematic national M&E mechanisms and tools developed and implemented

□ National M&E team include representatives of diverse groups within the country

□ Both qualitative and quantitative national M&E instruments have a clear peacebuilding dimension informed by conflict analysis and dealing with social cohesion, reconciliation, democratic ethos, resilience building and human security


• National policy, strategy and guideline documents on child-friendly schooling and education

• CFS partnership memoranda of understanding

• Written roles and responsibilities of national CFS team

• CFS teacher/principal education curriculum, training programme and support materials

• Interviews, surveys and questionnaires with MoE personnel, teacher educators, personnel from non-education sectors and from partner organizations

• M&E tools and reports


CFSforpeacebuildingindicatorsandmeansofverification:Examples for the PBEA programme results framework

This subsection exemplifies how the progress indicators suggested in the tables above can be applied to the PBEA Programme Results Framework, Global Outcome 3 – Community and individual capacity development: Increased capacity of children, parents, teachers and community members to prevent, reduce and cope with conflict and promote peace (UNICEF 2013c, 14).

Two examples are given below. It is anticipated that further elaborations will be made at the country level, taking into account local realities and unique contexts so that the number of indicators and means of verification are realistic and manageable in the given context.

B1. Student council – democratically run by students and addresses school and community-based injustices and peacebuilding-related issues

Peacebuilding gap



Indicators Means of verification*

□ No representative student body in the school

□ A token student council exists but lacks a clear democratic mandate, meets irregularly and has no clearly defined function

□ A student council or parliament is in place with elected representatives from each class or grade level

□ The council/parliament meets on a regular basis to an established meetings calendar

□ Meetings are more or less controlled by teachers but with space for student exchange, proposals and voting

□ The remit of the council is, for the most part, limited to organizing social events and festivities, extra-curricular activities, and tasks students perform around the school

□ Resolutions go to the principal for acceptance or non-acceptance

□ Beyond voting, the majority of students are not democratically active

□ Forms of election are used to achieve representation of different groups caught up in past conflict

□ Equal representation of boys and girls is achieved

□ Meetings are led by the students with teachers, as called upon, in an observational, advisory and support role

□ The agenda is determined by the student representatives based on issues raised and proposals from their peers, with no restrictions on topic

□ The remit of the council/parliament includes discussing and making proposals about problems, injustices and conflicts existing in the school and wider community, including inter-group and staff-student tension and conflict

□ Resolutions from the council are processed – and are seen to be processed – in a serious and respectful way by the principal and teachers, with resolutions going before other school bodies for consideration

➢ Establishment of student council (yes/no)

➢ Democratic election to select student council members (yes/no)

➢ # of students (boys/girls) in student council

➢ Frequency of student council meetings (monthly/annual)

➢ # of students (boys/girls) actively participating in student council activities

➢ Roles of teachers in a student council

➢ Degree of peacebuilding relevance of discussions, events and activities led by student council

➢ Levels of influence of student council in school decision making

➢ Levels of influence of student council in school and community social cohesion

➢ Survey/interview with school principal

➢ Written constitution

➢ Records of student council (e.g., minutes, proceedings and announcements)

➢ Focus group interviews with teachers

➢ Focus group interview with student council members

➢ Survey of students

➢ Focus group with parents and community members

*Suggested means of verification can be applied to different indicators suggested in the left column according to the local context. Thus, an indicator and means of verification are not necessarily paired in this table.


B7. Handling student conflict – student peer mediation processes fully function at school, and students are empowered to solve interpersonal and inter-group conflicts peacefully in school and community

Peacebuilding gap



Indicators Means of verification

□ Conflicts among students are dealt with and disciplined exclusively by teachers

□ Student peer mediation groups are in place, but they play an insufficient role given mediation needs; their profile and place in school infrastructure falls short of making them a distinctive feature of school life

□ Student peer mediation processes are fully functioning, organized and highly profiled at the school

□ Student peer mediation group members train other (especially younger) students to become mediators

□ Student peer mediation group members/those who are trained fulfil a mediation role in the community

➢ Establishment of peer mediation groups at school (yes/no)

➢ # of incidents of student-to-student conflicts at school (monthly/annually)

➢ # of student (male/female) trained for school peer mediation groups

➢ # of teachers (male/female) trained to support student peer mediation groups

➢ # of student-to student conflicts handled by peer mediation groups

➢ % of students (boys/girls) who used peer mediation processes to solve student-to-student conflict

➢ # of students (boys/girls) who played a mediation role in community

➢ % of targeted students (boys/girls) reporting positive attitude and behaviour in handling interpersonal and inter-group conflict in school and the community

➢ Survey with school principals

➢ Survey with students

➢ Written records by peer mediation groups

➢ Focus group interviews with members of student peer mediation groups

➢ Focus group interview with students who have used student peer mediation process

➢ Interview with teachers

➢ Focus group interviews with parents and community members

Education is, quite simply,

peacebuilding by another

name. It is the most effective

form of defense spending

there is.

‘‘–KofiAnnan’’

For more information, please contactEducation SectionProgramme DivisionUNICEF3 United Nations PlazaNew York, NY 10017, USA Websites: http://learningforpeace.unicef.org http://www.unicef.org